## F I LED Unite d St at e s C ourt o f Appe als Te nt h Ci r c uit 

### N ove m b e r 9, 2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES COURT OF APP EALS

TENTH C IR C U IT
E VE RE T T YOUNG , P lain tiff -A p p e llan t, v. D IL L O N C O M P A N IE S , IN C ., a /k /a K IN G S O O P E R S , IN C ., D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 1378

A ppeal f rom t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t ri ct C ourt f or t he D i s t r i c t of

C ol or ado ( D . C . N o . 0 4 - C V - 0 5 9 0 - Z L W- MJ W) A ndr ew T . B r ake, ( L ee T. J udd on the br i efs ) A ndr ew T . B r ake, P. C . , E ngl ew ood, C o lo ra d o , fo r P lain tiff

-A p p e llan t. W i l l i a m A . W r i g h t , S h e r m a n & H o w a r d L . L . C . , D e n v e r , C o l o r a d o ( R a ym o n d M . D e e n y, Sher m an & H ow ar d L . L . C . , C ol or ado Spr i ngs , C ol or ado, w i th hi m on the br i ef) , for D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. B efor e LU CE RO , O’ BRI EN , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. GORS UCH , C i r cui tJ udge.

E ver ettY oung s eeks damages fr om hi s form erempl oy er , D i l l on C om pani es , I nc. ( “D i l l on”) , al l egi ng thathi s di s char ge vi ol at ed Ti t l e V I I , w as i ncons i s t entw i th the-2-

p a rt ie s ’ i m p lie d c o n tr a c t te rm s , a n d ra n a f o u l o f th e d o c tr in e o f

p ro m is s o ry e s to p p e l. Fi ndi ng thatM r . Y oung fai l ed t o i dent i fya tr i abl e i s s ue, the di s tr i ctcourtgr ant ed s um m aryj udgm entforD i l l on on al l count s . O urr evi ew confi r m s that , on the l i m i t ed r ecor d devel oped bypl ai nt i ff dur i ng di s covery , entryof s um m aryj udgm entw as appr opr i at e. I. F ro m A u g u st 2 0 0 1 th ro u g h Ja n u a ry2 0 0 3 , M r. Y o u n g w o rk e d a s a re tail i n v e s t i g a t o ri n v a r i o u s o f Di l l o n ’ s Ki n g S o o p e r s g r o c e rys t o r e s i n Co l o r a d o . Atth e t i me M r. Y o u n g a c c e p te d th e jo b w ith D illo n , h e re c e iv e d (a n d s ig n e d f o r) a p e rs o n n e l m a n u a l. P e r t i n e n t l yf

o ro u ri mme d i a t e p u rp o s e s , th e ma n u a l p r o v i d e d th a t“ [ a ] l l t i me c a r d , t i me cl ock, ort i m e and a t t endanc e entr i es m us tbe ac cur at el ycompl et ed and r efl ectthe true hour s w or ked, ” and that“[r ] ecor di ng t i m e on y ourt i m e ca r d, t i m e cl ocks , ort i m e and att endanc e forw or k notper form ed w i l l be cons i der ed i n vi ol at i on of thi s pol i cy , l eadi ng t o di s ci pl i naryact i ons up t o and i ncl udi ng t erm i nat i on. ” See A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. at123, 124. U pon t aki ng the j ob, M r . Y oung al s o r ece i ved tr ai ni ng dur i ng the cour s e of w hi ch, h e a ss e rts, h e w a s in stru c ted th a t “ju st s lee p in g o n th e jo b [ w o u ld lea d to ] im m e d iate t erm i nat i on. ” S e e id . a t 9 1 [ 2 7 5 :2 3 -2 7 6 :4 ]. O n J anuary14, 2003, aft ernear l ya y earand a ha l f of s ervi ce a s an i nves t i gat or pol i ci ng thos e w ho w oul d s t eal fr om D i l l on’ s gr ocerys t or es , D i l l on fi r ed M r . Y oung on the put at i ve gr ound t hathe had e ngaged i n “theftof t i m e, ” ors eeki ng payforhour s not actual l yw or ked. A ccor di ng t o D i l l on, s ecur i tycamer as r evea l ed that , on J anuary11,-3-

2003, M r . Y oung l eftm or e than tw o hour s befor e hi s s hi ftended; fai l ed t o punch out w h en h e d ep arted ; and then , in D il lon ’s so -ca ll ed “tran sfe r l o g ” w h ere em p loy ee s rec o rd th e ir w o rk in g h o u rs e v e ryw e e k , m isre p re se n ted th a t h e h a d sta y e d u n til th e e n d o f h is sh if t. F o r h is p a rt, M r. Y o u n g c laim s th a t h e w o rk e d a f u ll sh if t, i n n o c e n tlyn e g lec ted to p u n ch o u t atthe e n d o f h is shift, an d return ed to w o rk later that n igh t t o p u n ch o u t. M r. Y oung al s o as s ert s thathe r ecor ded the true t i m e of hi s departur e i n the tr ans ferl og and th a t, i n a n ye v e n t, he w a s n o t sle e p in g o n th e jo b a n d th e re f o re c o u ld n o t b e p ro p e rly s u b je c te d to im m e d ia te te rm in a tio n . A s of J anuary11, M r . Y oung w as al r eadyunderi nves t i gat i on byD i l l on beca us e of a sto re m an ag er’s all eg ati o n that M r. Y o u n g ab u sed tel ep h o n e p ri v il eg es d u ri n g w o rk hour s . A s partof thati nves t i gat i on, J on L es l ey , M r . Y oung’ s s upervi s or , began t o r evi ew s t or e s ecur i tyvi deo r ecor di ngs r efl ect i ng M r . Y oung’ s on- the- j ob conduct . V i ew i ng a r ecor di ng fr om K i ng Sooper s St or e N um ber6 i n C ol or ado Spr i ngs , w her e M r . Y oung w as as s i gned t o w or k on J anuary11, 2003, fr om 2 p. m . t o 10: 30 p. m . , M r . L es l ey obs erved thatat8: 00 p. m . , M r . Y oung puton hi s coat , col l ect ed hi s br i efc as e, and l eftt he “ca m er a r oom ” w her e, as partof hi s j ob, he w as w at chi ng s ecur i tyvi deo fe eds fr om var i ous l ocat i ons ar ound t he s t or e. T he s t or e’ s vi deo r ecor di ngs s how thatM r . Y oung pr ocee ded t o l eave the s t or e and he ad i nt o the parki ng l ot . V i deo fr om the ca m er a r oom fur therconfi r m s thatM r . Y oung di d notr eturn ther e bef or e the end of

hi s s hi ftat10: 30 p .m .M r. Y o u n g re p re se n ts th a t M s. H a m m e r sh o w e d th e e lec tro n ic tim e c a rd re p o rts 1 to M r. L e sle y , b u t th e re c o rd c itatio n s h e p ro v id e s f o r th is p ro p o sitio n f

a il t o su p p o rt th is a s s e rt io n . See A pp el l ant’ s B r. at11 . T he o nlypert i nen trecor d tes t i m on ysugg est s j ust the oppos i t e t o be true – viz. , w hi l e M r . L es l eyr evi ew ed tr ans ferl og r ecor ds , aft er hear i ng fr om M s . H amm erthats he found no e l ectr oni c t i m e r ecor ds forM r . Y oung i n the 1 0 :3 0 p .m . “ tim e s lo t,” h e d id n o t p u rs u e th e is s u e f u rt h e r. See A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. at104- 0 5 [ 7 2 :8 -7 3 :2 2 ], 1 0 9 -1 0 [ 1 0 0 :2 0 -1 0 1 :8 ]. -4- A f te r v ie w in g th e v id e o , M r. L e s le yc o n s u lte d M r. Y o u n g ’s tim e k e e p in g re c o rd s . M r. Y o u n g w a s re q u ire d to “ p u n c h o u t” a t th e c lo se o f e v e rysh if

t u sin g a n e lec tro n ic tim e c a rd s y s te m . See A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. at55, 104 [70: 13- 16] . I n addi t i on, atthe end of eac h w or k w eek, M r . Y oung w as s uppos ed t o l eave the s t or e w her e he w as w or ki ng t hat dayfi ft een mi nut es befor e the end of hi s s hi ft , tr avel t o hi s hom e s t or e, and r ecor d the h o u rs h e w o rk e d th a t w e e k in th e tr a n s f e r l o g . S e e id
. a t5 5 , 7 4 [ 1 9 1 : 3 - 1 3 ] . Up o n r e v i e w, M r. L esleyfo u n d that, tho u g h Jan u ary1 1 rep rese n ted th e e n d o f h is w o rk w ee k , M r. Y oung di d notfi l l outhi s tr ans ferl og atthe cl os e of hi s s hi ftas di r ect ed. I ns t ead, vi deo f r o m M r . Y o u n g ’ s h o m e s t o r e s h o w e d th a th e a p p e a r e d th e r e a t5 a . m . th e f o l l o w i n g d a y, J anuary12, t o compl et e hi s tr ans ferl og. I n the l og i t s el f, M r . Y oung r epr es ent ed thathe h a d w o rk e d u n til 1 0 :3 0 p .m . th e p re v io u s e v e n in g . M r . L es l eyal s o cons ul t ed an a dm i ni s tr at i ve as s i s t antatM r . Y oung’ s hom e s t or e, T i na H am m er, abo ut M r. Y ou ng ’s el ect roni c t i m e card entr i es for January11 . M s. H amm erappar ent l yr eport ed thatthe el ectr oni c t i m e ca r d s y s t em di d notr eturn any departur e t i m e forM r . Y oung i n t he 10: 30 p. m . “t i m e s l ot . ” S e e id . at104- 05 [72: 21- 73: 6] . M r . L es l eyappar ent l yt ook thi s t o m ean thatM r . Y oung di d notpunch out atal l on the eve ni ng of J anuary11. 1M r . Y oung compl ai ns thatD i l l on s houl d have r et ai ned addi t i onal vi deo fr om t he 2 ni ghti n ques t i on butdoes notar gue i nt ent i onal s pol i at i on byD i l l on; nordoes he cont end thatD i l l on di d anythi ng otherthan fol l ow i t s nor m al pr ocedur es w i th r es pectt o the p re s e rv a tio n o f

s u c h re c o rd s . -5- B ase d o n the f

ac ts he h ad b ef

o re h im – the v ideo fro m S tore 6 , a re v iew o f M r. Y oung’ s tr ans ferl og, vi deo fr om hi s hom e s t or e, and hi s cons ul t at i on w i th M s . H amm er aboutthe el ectr oni c t i m e ca r d r ecor ds – M r . L es l eyconcl uded thatM r . Y oung had l eft w o rk e arlyo n Jan u ary1 1 . B ec au se sto re v ideo fe ed s are “c o p ied o v er” rou ti n ely , M r. L es l eypr ocee ded t o t r ans ferforpr es ervat i on ont o a vi deo t ape w hathe cons i der ed t o be the re leva n t vide o ref

lecti n g M r. Y o u n g ’s co n d u ct. T h en , o n Jan u ary1 4 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. 2 L e s le ym e t w ith M r. Y o u n g to d is c u s s h is f in d in g s . M r. Y o u n g d e n ie d le a v in g e a rl y . W hen t ol d thatvi deo s how ed hi m l eavi ng at8 p. m . , M r . Y oung r epl i ed thatthi s “w as i m pos s i bl e. ” S e e id . at75 [193: 14- 19] . M r . Y oung as s ert ed thathe punche d outon the el ectr oni c t i m e ca r d s y s t em atthe end of hi s s hi ft , “w hi ch w oul d have be en 10: 30. ” See id . at 74 [1 9 2 :22 -23 ]. M r. L esleyw as u n p ersu ad ed an d rep o rt ed h is be li ef that M r. Y o u n g h ad left w o rk ear l yt o hi s s upervi s or , J err yR i bl ett , K i ng Sooper s ’ D i r ect orof Secur i ty . I ti s undi s put ed that M r. L esleyfu rth er su p p li ed M r. R iblettw ith a f aith fu l acc o u n t of

M r. Y o u n g ’s ver s i on of the eve nt s of the eve ni ng i n ques t i on. M r . R i bl ett , i n turn, r evi ew ed the m at er i al s pr ovi ded byM r . L es l ey , i ncl udi ng the r ecor ded vi deo and tr ans ferl og; c o n c u rre d w ith M r. L e sle y ’s f in d in g s; a n d p ro c e e d e d to d isc u ss th e m a tter w ith S tep h a n ie B o u k n igh t, K ing S o o p ers’ M an ag er o f L ab o r an d E m p loy ee R elati o n s. T o g ethe r, M r.-6-

R i bl ettand M s . B oukni ghtdeci ded t o t erm i nat e M r . Y oung. M r . R i bl ettconvey ed the d e c is io n to M r. L e s le yw h o , in tu rn , in f o rm e d M r. Y o u n g o f

h is te rm in a tio n . T hi s l aw s ui tfol l ow ed. I n hi s compl ai nt , M r . Y oung, an A fr i can A m er i can, al l eged th a t h e w a s f

ire d b e c a u se o f

h is ra c e a n d th a t D ill o n e ith e r b re a c h e d its c o n tra c t w ith h im oract ed i n a mannerthatcontr avene s the doctr i ne of pr om i s s oryes t oppel . D ur i ng the co u rse o f d isco v ery , M r. Y o u n g rec eive d , am o n g o ther thin g s, elec tr o n ic t im e c ard r ecor ds r efl ect i ng that , w hi l e he di d notpunch outathi s appoi nt ed depa r tur e t i m e of 10: 30 p. m . as M s . H amm err eport ed t o M r . L es l ey , he di d i n fac tpunch outl at er , at11: 58 p .m . A t h is d e p o sitio n , M r. Y o u n g tes tifie d th a t h e re a lize d th a t h e h a d f o rg o tten to p u n c h o u t a f

te r h e a rr iv e d h o m e a n d re tu rn e d to th e s to re to d o s o . See A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. at82 [230: 23- 231: 7] . H e al s o t es t i fi ed that , betw een 8 a nd 10: 30 p. m . , he w al ked i ns i de and out s i de of the s t or e che cki ng on the s ecur i tyof, among ot herthi ngs , cert ai n gas t anks s to re d b e h in d th e b u ild in g . S e e id . at75 [195: 4- 11] , 82 [232: 18- 25] . M r . Y oung, h o w e v e r, ap p a re n tlyd id n o t sh a re e ith e r o f th e se p o in ts w ith M r. L e sle yp rio r to h is t erm i nat i on, buti ns t ead t ol d M r . L es l eym er el ythathe di dn’ t“r eca l l exac t l yw hatt i m e” he had punc hed outand thathe “punc hed outatw hat evert i m e mys hi ftw as t o end, w hi ch w oul d have be en 10: 30. ” Id . at 7 4 [ 1 9 2 :2 1 -2 3 ]; se e a lso id . a t 7 5 [ 1 9 5 :2 5 -1 9 6 :3 ] (“ [ A ]ll I c o u l d t e l l [ M r . Le s l e y ] wa s wh a t e v e rt i me I p u n c h e d o u ti s wh e n I l e f ta tth e e n d o f

my s hi ft . W e w er en’ tt al ki ng aboutpr opane t anks orgoi ng t o car s ornothi ng el s e of that n ature . ”).-7-

A fter a h ea ri n g o n d ef

en d an t’ s m o ti o n fo r sum m aryjud g m en t, the d istri ct co u rt iss u e d a n o ra l ru lin g f

o r d e f e n d a n t o n a ll o f

M r. Y o u n g ’s c laim s a g a in st D ill o n . W ith re s p e c t to p la in tif

f ’s d is c ri m in a tio n c la im u n d e r T itle V II , 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e , et s eq. , t he d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t: [T]he l aw i s thatthe empl oy er ’ s r eas ons do nothave t o be corr ect , theyhave t o be hones t l ybel i eved a nd act ed on i n good fai th. A nd i n thi s cas e, w e have a vi deo s how i ng [M r . Y oung] put t i ng on hi s coatand l eavi ng the pl ace w her e he w as s uppos ed t o be at8 o’ cl ock. W e have no i ndi cat i on, even though the vi deo cont i nues , thathe ca m e bac k t o thatr oom . A nd al l of thi s expl anat i on about c h e c k in g p ro p a n e a n d w a lk in g a ro u n d th e sto re w a s n o t ad e q u a telye x p lain e d to K ing S o o p ers init ial lyw h en theyask ed h im ab o u t l ea v ing lat e. . . . [T ]he re is m o re than ade quat e pr offe r ed t es t i m onyand r eas ons thatdefe ndanthones t l ybel i eved th a t h e lef

t ea rly , li e d a b o u t w h e re h e w a s, a n d if th e yd id h o n e stlyb e liev e , tha t is su f f icie n t. See Ap p e l l a n t ’ s Ap p . a t2 7 4 - 7 5 . W i th r e s p e c tt o M r . Yo u n g ’ s b r e a c h o f c o n tr a c tc l a i m, the di s tr i ctcourthel d t hatnei therthe empl oy ee manual northe al l eged s t at ement s dur i ng tr a in in g c o n s titu te d a n e n f o rc e a b le c o n tr a c t. Id . F inally , the d istri ct co u rtd ism issed M r. Y oung’ s pr om i s s oryes t oppel cl ai m “notonl ybeca us e [M r . Y oung] has fai l ed t o i dent i fy a pol i cyi n an empl oy ee manual that[D i l l on] fai l ed t o fol l ow , butbeca us e [M r . Y oung] coul d nothave r eas onabl yr el i ed on the s t at ement[al l egedl ym ade dur i ng] tr ai ni ng that the onl yt erm i nabl e off

ens e w as s l eepi ng on the j ob. ” Id . a t 2 7 6 .

II. W e re v ie w th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o . See Stoverv. Mar t i nez , 3 8 2 F .3 d 1 0 6 4 , 1 0 7 0 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). S u m m a ryju d g m e n t is a p p ro p ria te if “the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherT h e d istric t co u rt h a d ju risd ictio n o v e r M r. Y o u n g ’s T itl e V II c laim s p u rsu a n t to 3 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e , et

s eq. , and 28 U . S . C . § 1 33 1. W i th respectt o h i s st at e l aw cl ai m s, th e c o mp l a i n ta l l e g e s f

a c t s s u f f i c i e n tt o i n v o k e d i v e r s i tyj u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 3 3 2 , a s w e l l a s th e e x e r c i s e o f s u p p l e m e n t a l j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S . C . § 1 3 6 7 . We h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r t h e a p p e a l u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . -8- w i th the af

fi davi t s , i f any , s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand th a t th e m o v in g p a rt yis e n title d to ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f la w .” F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 (c ). I n conduct i ng ouranal y s i s , w e vi ew al l of the fa ct s i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the non- m ovantand dr aw al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s fr om the r ecor d i n favorof the n o n -m o v in g p a rt y . See Stover , 382 F. 3d at1070. 3 A. W h e re , as h e re , a T itl e V II p lain tiff re lies o n in d ire c t o r c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e to sh o w d iscri m ination , w e e x am ine th e c lai m u n d er the fa m il iar bu rde n -shifti n g fra m ew o rk s etfor th i n McD onnel lD ouglas C or p. v. G r een , 4 1 1 U .S . 7 9 2 (1 9 7 3 ). See Kendri ck v
. P ens ke Tr ans

p. Ser vs . , I

nc. , 2 2 0 F . 3 d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). U n d er McD o n n e ll D ouglas , the pl ai nt i ff c arr i es the i ni t i al bur den of e s t abl i s hi ng a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r aci al d is c ri m in a tio n . See Kendri ck , 220 F. 3d at1226 ( di s cus s i ng McD onnel lD ouglas , 411 U . S. at802- 04) . O nce the pl ai nt i ff e s t abl i s hes a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, the bur den s hi ft s t o the em ploy er t o art i culat e som e l egit i m at e, no n-di scr i m i natoryreas on for the ad verse e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . Id . I f the def endantm akes thi s s how i ng, the bur den then s hi ft s back to th e p la in tif

f to s h o w th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t’ s p ro f

f e re d ju s tif

ic a tio n is p re te x tu a l. Id . T he part i es agr ee thatM r . Y oung has m ade outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e of r ace di s cr i m i nat i on and thatD i l l on has putfor th a l egi t i m at e, non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas on for-9-

M r. Y o u n g ’s te rm in a tio n . See A pp el l ant’ s B r. at25 -29; A pp el l ee’s B r. at22 -23. T hu s, a ll th a t re m a in s b e f

o re u s is to d e c id e w h e th e r a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t ex ists a s to w h e th e r D ill o n ’s p ro f

f e re d re a so n f

o r d isc h a rg in g M r. Y o u n g w a s p re tex tu a l. T h a t is to s ay , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherther e i s evi dence fr om w hi ch a r eas onabl e fa ctfi nder coul d concl ude thatD i l l on fi r ed M r . Y oung on acc ountof hi s r ace r atherthan, as D i l l on cl ai m s , beca us e of hi s al l eged a t t empt t o getpai d forhour s notactual l yw or ked. T o s how thatthe def

endant ’ s pr offe r ed r ace - neutr al r eas ons w er e ac tual l ya pr et extfor d iscri m ination , this C o u rth as h eld th at th e p lai n ti ff m u st de m o n str ate tha t th e d ef en d an t’ s “p rof fe red [ra ce -ne u tr al] reaso n s w ere so inco h ere n t, w ea k , inco n sist en t, o r co n tr ad ict o ry thata r at i onal fac t fi ndercoul d concl ude the r eas ons w er e unw or thyof bel i ef. ” See St over , 3 8 2 F . 3 d a t1 0 7 6 . M r . Y o u n g s e e k s t o s h o w p r e t e x ti n a c o u p l e o f d i f f e r e n tw a ys m e ri tin g m e n tio n h e re . 1. M r. Y o u n g arg u es th at he w o rke d u n ti l th e c o m p let ion o f h is shift, that D il lon ’s as s ert i on ot herw i s e i s fal s e, and thatD i l l on’ s r aci al ani m us can be i nferr ed fr om the fal s i tyof i t s pr offe r ed r ace - neutr al r eas on forthe t erm i nat i on. T he Supr eme C our thas r ecogni zed that“[i ] n appr opr i at e ci r cumst ance s , the tr i erof fa ctcan r eas onabl yi nferfr om the fa l s i tyof the expl anat i on thatthe empl oy eri s di s s embl i ng t o coverup a di s cr i m i nat orypurpos e. ” See Reev es v. Sanders on P l um bi ng P r ods
. , I nc. , 530 U . S. 133, 147 ( 2000) . “Thus, a pl ai nt i ff’ s pr i m a fa ci e ca s e, combi ned w i th s uf f i ci ent evi dence to f in d th a t th e e m p lo y e r’ s a s s e rt e d ju s tif ic a tio n is f

a ls e , m a y p e rm it th e trier o f

f a c t to-10-

concl ude thatthe empl oy erunl aw ful l ydi s cr i m i nat ed. ” I d. at148 ( emphase s added) . B ut the n ature and qu antum of p l ai nti ff’s pr oo f i s key , for the S up rem e C ou rthas al so expl ai ned thatevi dence aboutthe fa l s i tyof an e m pl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed r ace - neutr al e x p lan a tio n f

o r te rm in a tio n w ill n o t “ alw ays be ade quat e t o s us t ai n . . . l i abi l i ty . ” I d. at 1 4 8 (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . D i s c u s s i n g th e q u a n tu m o f e v i d e n c e r e q u i r e d b y R eev es , this C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t, “[i ] n dr aw i ng [a R eev es - type] i nfer ence , the fa ct fi nderm us tbe abl e t o concl ude, bas ed on a p re p o n d e ra n c e o f

th e e v id e n c e , tha t dis cri m i na t i on w as a d et erm i na t i ve f actor i n the e m p lo y e r’ s a c tio n s – s im p ly d is b e lie v in g th e e m p lo y e r i s in s u f f ic ie n t.” Mi l l erv. E by Rea l t y G r ou p LLC , 3 9 6 F . 3 d 1 1 0 5 , 1 1 1 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T h is C o u rt h a s f u rth e r e x p lain e d , p o st- R eev es , that“[t ] he r el evanti nqui ryi s notw hetherthe empl oy er ’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons w er e w i s e, fai rorcorr ect , butw hetheri thones t l ybel i eved thos e r eas ons and ac t ed i n good fai th upon thos e bel i efs . ” R i ver a v. C i t y and C ount

y of D enve r , 365 F. 3d 912, 924- 25 ( 10th C i r . 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and al t er at i on o m itt e d ); s ee al

s o Kendr i ck , 220 F. 3d at1231 (“ [ A ] c h a llen g e o f p re tex t re q u ire s u s to lo o k a t th e f

a c ts a s th e ya p p e a r t o th e p e rs o n m a k in g th e d e c is io n to te rm in a te p la in tif f.” ). T h u s, th e re lev a n t “f

a lsity ” in q u iryis w h e th e r th e e m p lo y e r’s sta ted re a so n s w e re h e ld in good fai th atthe t i m e of the di s char ge, even i f theyl at erpr ove t o be untrue, orw hether pl ai nt i ff c an s how thatthe empl oy er ’ s expl anat i on w as s o w eak, i m pl aus i bl e, i ncons i s t ent o r in c o h e re n t th a t a r e a so n a b le f a c t f in d e r c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t itw a s n o t an h o n e stlyh e ld b e lie f b u t r a th e r w a s s u b te rf

u g e f o r d is c ri m in a tio n . See R i vera , 365 F. 3d at924- 25. T he-11-

r eas on forthi s rul e i s pl ai n: ourr ol e i s t o pr eventi nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat oryhi r i ng pract i ces, no tt o act as a “supe r per sonn el dep artm ent, ” secon d g uessi ng em ploy ers ’ h o n e s tly h e ld (e v e n if

e rr o n e o u s ) b u s in e s s ju d g m e n ts . See Jo nes v. B arnh art , 349 F. 3d 1 2 6 0 , 1 2 6 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ). A s the di s tr i ctcourtobs erved, M r . Y oung offe r s no evi dence thatM r . R i bl ettand M s . B o u k n i g h th o n e s t l y b e l i e v e d a n yth i n g o th e rth a n th a tM r . Y o u n g h a d l e f tw o r k e a r l y, th a t h e in ten tio n a llym isre p re se n ted h is tim e in th e tra n sf e r lo g , an d th a t h e so u g h t to o b tain p a yf

o r w o rk h e n e v e r p e rf

o rm e d . N o r d o e s M r. Y o u n g d isp u te th a t M r. R ib lett and M s . B oukni ghthad bef or e them vi deo s how i ng hi m l eavi ng the s t or e ea r l y , not r eturni ng t o t he ca m er a r oom , and fa i l i ng t o compl et e hi s tr ans ferl og athi s hom e s t or e at th e e n d o f

h is s h if t a s in s tru c te d . D ispu ti n g n o n e o f th is, M r. Y o u n g em p h asize s the elec tr o n ic t im e c ard rec o rd s how i ng thathe punche d outat11: 58 p. m . , as w el l as hi s depos i t i on t es t i m onyexpl ai ni ng thathe w as bus yaft er8 p. m . w al ki ng ar ound i ns i de and out s i de the s t or e. T hi s evi dence m ayveryw el l cas tdoubton D i l l on’ s concl us i on thatM r . Y oung l eftear l y , but , as the di s tr i ctcourtobs erved, ther e i s no evi dence thatthes e fa ct s w er e know n t o the r el evant d e c i s i o n ma k e r s wi th i n Di l l o n a tth e t i me th e yma d e th e i rd e c i s i o n t o f i r e M r . You n g . To the contr ary , the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatthe fi r s tt i m e M r . R i bl ettand M s . B oukni ghtl earned o f th ese claim s w as in the c o u rse o f d isco v eryin this l it igation . T h e e lectron ic t im e c ard ev iden ce u n ea rth ed d u ri n g d isco v eryw as n o t prese n ted to eith er d ec isi o n m ak er b ef o re theym ade the dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e M r . Y oung’ s empl oym ent . N ei therdi d M r . Y oung-12-

come for w ar d w i th an expl anat i on of hi s w her eabout s dur i ng the r el evantt i m e per i od w hen he w as i nt ervi ew ed byM r . L es l ey . A ccor di ngl y , w hi l e evi dence amass ed dur i ng di s coverym ayw el l s ugges tthatD i l l on’ s bel i efs aboutM r . Y oung w er e w r ong, theydo nots ugges tthos e bel i efs w er e hel d i n bad fa i th. N o r a re w e p o in ted to f a c ts s u g g e stin g th a t re lev a n t ev id e n c e w a s d e lib e ra tely su p p resse d fro m the d ec isi o n m ak ers o r i g n o red in o rde r t o fu rth er a d iscri m inato ry purpos e. I ti s undi s put ed thatM r . L es l eyr evi ew ed vi deo and the tr ans ferl ogs ; i nqui r ed w i th M s . H amm eraboutthe cont entof M r . Y oung’ s el ectr oni c t i m e ca r d r ecor ds ; pas s ed al ong herfi ndi ng thatther e w as no i ndi cat i on thatM r . Y oung punched outi n the 10: 30 p. m . “t i m e s l ot ”; offe r ed M r . Y oung a cha nce t o r es pond t o the fa ct s as M r . L es l ey u n d erstoo d them ; and ac cu ratelyrep o rt ed h is find ing s an d M r. Y o u n g ’s resp o n ses to M r. Ri b l e t ta n d M s . Bo u k n i g h t . Wh i l e i n h i n d s i g h tp e rh a p s mo r e mi g h th a v e b e e n d o n e , we a re g iv e n n o re a so n o n th e re c o rd b e f o re u s to c o n c lu d e th a t th e in v e stig a tio n ’s lim its w ere the resul tof an i m proper raci al anim us. T he fa ct s befor e us ar e verym uch l i ke thos e w e fa ced i n Kendr i ck . T her e the p la in tif f w a s d is c h a rg e d f

o r i n s u b o rd in a tio n , in c lu d in g a lle g e d ly p u s h in g a s u p e rv is o r. See Kendri ck , 220 F. 3d at1224. Forthe purpos e of rul i ng on the def endant ’ s m ot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t, w e a ss u m e d th a t th e p lain tiff ’s s tate m e n t th a t h e d id n o t p u sh h is s u p e rv is o r w a s tru e . I

d. at1231. B utthe evi dence al s o s how ed thatthe dec i s i on m aker b e liev e d – b a se d o n a n o th e r e m p lo y e e ’s r e p o rt – th a t th e p lain tiff h a d , in f a c t, pu sh e d h is s u p e rv is o r. I

d. at1232. A nd w e found no e vi dent i arybas i s s ugges t i ng thatthe dec i s i on-13-

m a k e r c a m e to th is b e lie f in b a d f a ith . Id . at1231- 32. A s a r es ul t , w hi l e the dec i s i on m a k e r’s c o n c lu sio n a b o u t th e p lain tiff ’s c o n d u c t m a yh a v e b e e n w ro n g , w e sa w n o b a sis o n w h ic h a re a s o n a b le f a c t f in d e r c o u ld h a v e f

o u n d th a t it w a s n o t h o n e s tly h e ld . I d. We f in d o u rs e lv e s in m u c h th e s a m e , if d if f ic u lt, p o s itio n in th is c a s e . M r. Y o u n g a rg u e s th a t P lo tke v . W h ite , 4 0 5 F . 3 d 1 0 9 2 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ), hel d that pr et exti s s uffi ci ent l ys how n fors um m aryj udgm entpurpos es w heneve ra pl ai nt i ff demonstr at es thatthe “true fa ct s ” as s oci at ed w i th a t erm i nat i on di ffe rfr om w hatthe empl oy erhones t l ybel i eved t o be the ca s e. N othi ng i n ourpanel opi ni on i n P l otke , how ever , purpor t s t o ( orcoul d) r ever s e ourpr i orrul i ngs i n Kendr i ck and R i vera r equi r i ng u s to lo o k to th e f

a c ts a s th e ya p p e a re d to th e d e c isio n m a k e r. R a th e r, w e sim p lyh e ld in P l otke th a t th e p lain tiff th e re h a d su c c e e d e d in p re se n tin g su f f icie n t f a c ts s u c h th a t a re a so n a b le f

a c t f in d e r c o u ld c o n c lu d e th a t th e d e c isio n m a k e r’s p ro f f e re d g o o d f

a ith r eas on fort erm i nat i on w as s pur i ous , gi ven the fa ct s know n t o the dec i s i on m akeratt he tim e . See Pl otke , 405 F. 3d at1103- 08. I n ai d of thatconcl us i on, w e not ed thatthe d e f e n d a n t ’ s p r o f

f e r e d r e a s o n f

o rt e r m i n a t i o n w a s g e n e r a t e d o n l y af t erth e te rm in a tio n , a f a c to r t h a t w e h a v e lo n g h e ld s ig n if ic a n t in a s s e s s in g c la im s o f p re te x t, i d. at1103, but o n e th a t s im p ly is n o t p re s e n t h e re . W e a ls o p o in te d to e v id e n c e s u g g e s tin g , in tera lia , th a t th e d e f

e n d a n t f a b ric a ted d o c u m e n tatio n re latin g to th e ter m in a tio n a n d f a iled to fol l ow i t s ow n w r i t t en t erm i nat i on pr ocedur es , and thatothers eni ors upervi s or s empl oy ed b yd e f e n d a n t b e lie v e d th e re w a s n o e v id e n c e o f m is c o n d u c t b yth e p la in tif f. Id
. at1103- 08. A gai n, no evi dence of thi s ki nd – evi dence bear i ng di r ect l yon w hetherthe def endant-14-

au tho ri ze d a term ination in g o o d fa ith o r i n stead so u g h t t o p u rsue a d iscri m inato ry pu rpose throug h sub t erfuge – exis t s i n the r ecord b efore us. 2. M r. Y o u n g n e x t ar g u e s th a t p re tex t ca n b e in f e rre d b e c a u se M r. L e sle yis a lleg e d ly b iased ag ains t A frican A m erican s. In su p p o rto f th is cl aim , M r. Y o u n g all eg es th at M r. L es l eyhas m ade c ert ai n s t at ement s that , w e agr ee, evi nce a deep a nd r epugnantr aci al ani m us . W i th one exc ept i on w e s hal l di s cus s s hor t l y , how ever , M r . Y oung’ s as s ert i ons d o n o t con ce rn statem en ts he p erso n all yh ea rd M r. L esleym ak e. R athe r, theyco n ce rn sta tem e n ts M r. L e sle ya lleg e d lym a d e to o th e r e m p lo y e e s a n d w h ich w e re su b se q u e n tly c o n v e y e d , s e c o n d -h a n d , to M r. Y o u n g . T h a t is , M r. Y o u n g ’s te s tim o n yre s ts o n h e a rs a y . H a d c o u n se l se c u re d sw o rn sta tem e n ts o r te stim o n yf ro m th o se e m p lo y e e s w h o a lleg e d ly h e a r d M r . L e s l e y ’ s r e ma r k s f i r s t - h a n d , th i s c a s e mi g h tb e i n a v e ryd i f f e r e n tp o s tu r e . As i ti s , how ever , w e do nothave di r ectt es t i m onyfr om the i ndi vi dual s t o w hom M r . L es l ey al l egedl ym ade r aci s tr emar ks ; the def endanthas l odged a he ar s ayobj ect i on t o the admi s s i on orcons i der at i on of thes e s t at ement s ; and M r . Y oung has poi nt ed us t o no appl i cabl e exc ept i on t o t he hea r s ayrul e. W e ar e thus r equi r ed t o abi de ourpr ece dentand re f ra in f ro m c o n s id e ri n g th e s e m a tte rs o n s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Star rv. P ear l e Vis i on, I nc. , 54 F. 3d 1548, 1555 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( “Today , w e al i gn our s el ves w i th thi s l i ne ofM r . Y oung al s o ci t es as evi dence of r aci s m M r . L es l ey ’ s i nves t i gat i ve 4 tec h n iq u e s, su c h a s rif

lin g th ro u g h h is tra sh c a n a n d sm e lli n g h is c o f f e e c u p (o ste n sib ly foral cohol ) . B utM r . Y oung fai l s t o poi ntus t o evi dence s ugges t i ng thatM r . L es l ey subject ed si m i l arl ysi tuated no n-m i no ri tyem ploy ees t o an ydiffer ent ( al beitzeal ou s) tre a tm e n t. -15- a u th o ritya n d h o ld th a t R u le 5 6 p re c lu d e s th e u se o f in a d m iss ib le h e a rsa ytes tim o n yin d ep o sit ion s su b m itted in su p p o rto f, or in o p p o sit ion to, sum m aryjud g m en t. ”). 4 T he s i ngl e r aci al epi thetforw hi ch M r . Y oung i s abl e t o pr ovi de fi r s t - hand t es t i m onyconce r ns an epi s ode w hen M r . L es l eyal l egedl yr efe rr ed t o an A fr i can A m er i can s t or e manageras a “monkey . ” D i l l on does notdi s put e thats uch a r emar k, m a d e in th e c o n tex t alle g e d , is a d e ro g a to ryra c ial e p ith e t. In ste a d , D ill o n a rg u e s th a t, even i f a dis cri m i natorybias i s proven w i th respectt o o ne o f def end ant’ s em ploy ees, ther e mustbe s om e evi dence i n t he r ecor d s ugges t i ng thatthe pl ai nt i ff’ s t erm i nat i on at iss u e w a s in f

e c ted b ysu c h b ias ; u n d e r th is te st, D ill o n a d d s, M r. Y o u n g ’s c laim f a ils b ec au se h e h as n o t po inted to an yev iden ce in the rec o rd su g g esti n g that M r. L esley ’s a lle g e d a n im u s a f

f e c te d M r. Y o u n g ’s re v ie w a n d te rm in a tio n . L i ke the di s tr i ctcourt , w e fe el cons tr ai ned byourpr ece dentt o agr ee. I n R ea v. Mar t i n Mar i et ta C or

p. , 2 9 F .3 d 1 4 5 0 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ), th is C o u rt e x p re ss lyh e ld th a t a p lai n ti ff w h o fa il s to sh o w an yco n n ec ti o n b etw ee n h er su p erv isor’s discrim inato ry comm ent s aboutanotherempl oy ee a nd herow n t erm i nat i on, w i thoutm or e, fai l s t o s at i s fy the bur den i m pos ed byC ongr es s underT i t l e V I I of pr ovi ng thatthe adve r s e ac t i on w as c a u s e d b yu n la w f

u l d is c ri m in a to ry a n im u s . I d. at1457; s ee al

s o E ngl is h v. C ol o. D ep’ tof C orr. , 2 4 8 F . 3 d 1 0 0 2 , 1 0 1 0 ( 1 0 th Ci r . 2 0 0 1 ) . I n o r d e rt o s t a t e a c l a i m u n d e rT i t l e VI I , we-16-

have r epea t edl yexpl ai ned that“the pl ai nt i ff mustdemonstr at e a ne xus betw een the al l egedl ydi s cr i m i nat orys t at ement s and the def endant ’ s deci s i on t o t erm i nat e her . ” R ea , 29 F. 3d at1457. A nd, t o demonstr at e s uch a c aus al nexus , w e have hel d thatthe pl ai nt i ff m us ts how that“the al l egedl ydi s cr i m i nat orycomm ent s w er e di r ect ed at[her ] , her pos i t i on, orthe def

endant ’ s pol i cyw hi ch r es ul t ed i n the adve r s e ac t i on t aken a gai ns tt he pl ai nt i ff. ” Id .; see al

so E ng l ish , 248 F. 3d at1010. T o b e su re , w e h a v e re c o g n ize d th a t a r a c iallyb ias e d in v e stig a to r c a n iss u e re p o rts an d rec o m m en d ati o n s inf luen ce d b yh is or h er b ias an d there b yca u se d ec isi o n m ak ers w ho r el yon thos e r eport s t o fi r e an e m pl oy ee unl aw ful l y– a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the bi as ed in v e s tig a to r u s e s th e s u p e rv is o rs a s a c a t’ s p a w to e f f e c t h is o r h e r o w n b ia s e d d e s ig n s . See EE O Cv . B C

I C o c a -C o la B o ttlin gC o . o f L o s A n g e le s , 4 5 0 F . 3 d 4 7 6 , 4 8 7 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ); E ng l ish , 2 4 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 1 ; Kendr i ck , 220 F. 3d at1231. I n or dert o s ucce ed under su ch a the o ry , h o w ev er, a p lai n ti ff m u st sho w that the a ll eg ed lyb iased inv esti g ator’s di s cr i m i nat oryr eport s , r ecomm endat i on, orotheract i ons w er e the pr oxi m at e ca us e of the a d v e rs e e m p lo ym e n t a c tio n . S e e BCI , 450 F. 3d at487- 88. T hus , w e have hel d thatan unbi as ed s upervi s orcan br eak the ca us al chai n byconduct i ng an “i ndepende nt in v e s tig a tio n ” o f

th e a lle g a tio n s a g a in s t a n e m p lo y e e . S e e id . at488. H er e, w e ca nnot fi nd the r equi s i t e ca us at i on gi ven thatM r . L es l eym er el yconduct ed an i nves t i gat i on but m ade no r ecomm endat i on t o t he dec i s i on m aker s orotherw i s e part i ci pat ed i n the dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e M r . Y oung; he i nt ervi ew ed M r . Y oung and tr ans m i t t ed M r . Y oung’ s ver s i on o f e v e n ts to h is s u p e rio rs; a n d th e re lev a n t d e c isio n m a k e rs – w h o a re n o t alle g e d toT he part i es agr ee thatM r . Y oung’ s comm on l aw cl ai m s ar e governed by 5 Co l o r a d o l a w. See A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 1 4 ; A p p e lle e ’s B r. a t 1 1 -1 9 . -17- harboranyr aci al ani m us – i ndepende nt l yr evi ew ed the vi deo and t i m ekee pi ng r ecor ds for th e m s e lv e s b e f

o re m a k in g th e irte rm in a tio n d e c is io n . B . I ti s undi s put ed thatM r . Y oung w as hi r ed foran i ndefi ni t e per i od of t i m e and, thus , i s an “a t - w i l l ” empl oy ee unde rC ol or ado l aw , s om eone w hos e empl oym entm aybe te rm in a te d la w f

u lly b ye ith e r p a rt yw ith o u t r e a s o n o r n o tic e . See C on t i nen tal AirL i nes, I nc. v. Keenan , 7 3 1 P . 2 d 7 0 8 , 7 1 1 (C o lo. 19 8 7 ). N o n ethe less, in ad d it ion to h is T it le V II c l a i m , M r . Y o u n g a s s e r t s th a th e w a s e n t i t l e d a s a m a t t e ro f c o n tr a c tl a w o r , a l t e rn a t i v e l y, underthe doctr i ne of pr om i s s oryes t oppel , t o cert ai n w arni ngs pr i ort o hi s t erm i nat i on. 5 I n E vens on v. C ol or ado Far m B ur eau Mut ualI ns ur ance Co. , 879 P. 2d 402, 408- 0 9 (C o lo . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 3 ), th e C o lo ra d o C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re c o g n ize d th a t sta tem e n ts m ade t o empl oy ees ( ther e i n an empl oy ee manual ) pr es cr i bi ng w hen and how an empl oy ee maybe t erm i nat ed ar e, undercert ai n ci r cumst ance s , enfor cea bl e as a mat t erof i m pli ed co ntr acteven w i th respectt o at- w i l l em ploy ees. T o ens ur e fa i rnes s and p re d ic ta b ility in th e la w o f c o n tr a c t, h o w e v e r, E vens on i m pos es s tr i ctl i m i t s on w hen Co l o r a d o c o u r t s wi l l tru mp th e p a r t i e s ’ e x p r e s s a g r e e me n ta n d i mp l ya d d i t i o n a l t e r ms betw een them. A m ong ot herthi ngs , the empl oy er ’ s conductm us tbe under s t ood as : ( a) convey i ng a w i l l i ngnes s t o be bound bythe addi t i onal t erm s ati s s ue; and ( b) j us t i fy i ng th e e m p lo y e e in th in k in g th a t h is o r h e r in iti a l o r c o n tin u e d e m p lo ym e n t w o u ld c o n stitu te-18-

a n a c c e p ta n c e o f

, a n d c o n s id e ra tio n f

o r, t h e te rm s a t is s u e . Id . a t 4 0 9 ; s ee al s o Keenan , 7 3 1 P .2 d a t 7 1 1 . T o sta te a c laim f

o r p ro m iss o rye sto p p e l, th e C o lo ra d o S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld thatan empl oy ee must“demonstr at e thatthe empl oy ers houl d r eas onabl yhave e xpect ed the empl oy ee t o cons i der[i t s offe rt o the empl oy ee t o be] a comm i t m ent. . . t o fol l ow t he t erm i nat i on pr ocedur es , thatthe empl oy ee r eas onabl yr el i ed on the t erm i nat i on pr ocedur es t o hi s detr i m ent , and thati nj us t i ce c an be a voi ded onl ybyenfor cementof the t erm i nat i on pr ocedur es . ” Keenan , 731 P. 2d at712. T he empl oy ee mustal s o s how that the empl oy er ’ s pr om i s e w as “s uffi ci ent l ys peci fi c s o thatthe j udi ci arycan unde r s t and the obl i gat i on as s um ed and e nfor ce the pr om i s e ac cor di ng t o i t s t erm s . ” Soder l un v. P ub. Ser v. C o. of

C ol o. , 944 P. 2d 616, 620 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1997) . I f, how ever , a s t at ementby an em p loy er is “m ere lya d esc ri p ti o n o f th e e m p loy er’s p rese n t po li cies . . . itis ne ith er a pr om i s e nora s t at ementthatcoul d r eas onabl ybe r el i ed upon as a comm i t m ent . ” I d. ; a c c o rdG e o rg e v . Ute W a terC o n se rv a n c

y D ist. , 950 P. 2d 1195, 1199 ( C ol o. C t . A pp. 1 9 9 7 ). M r. Y o u n g claim s h e c an sati sfythe e lem en ts fo r i m p li ed co n tr ac t or p rom issory esto p p el byv irtue o f th ree p iece s o f e v iden ce . A s the d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed , h o w ev er, n o n e s u f f i c e s a s a ma t t e ro f

l a w. F i rst , M r. Y o u n g p o ints us to M s. B o u k n igh t’ s d ep o sit ion test im o n yas D il lon ’s corpor at e r epr es ent at i ve. T her e, M s . B oukni ghtexpl ai ned herunder s t andi ng thatan em ploy ee w ho i nn ocen t l yfai l s t o clock o ut “pr ob ably ” w i l l no tbe term i nated for a fi rs t-19-

o f f e n s e . See A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. at134 [42: 2- 11] . B utw e have no i ndi cat i on thatthe su b sta n c e o f

M s. B o u k n ig h t’s a f

ter -th e -f a c t d e p o sitio n tes tim o n yw a s e v e r c o n v e y e d to M r . Y oung dur i ng the cour s e of hi s empl oym ent . W i thoutpr oof on thi s s cor e, w e ca nnot tr eatthes e t erm s as havi ng been i m pl i edl yconvey ed and a cce pt ed forcons i der at i on by the part i es forpurpos es of an i m pl i ed contr actorr eas onabl yr el i ed upon forpurpos es of p ro m is s o ry e s to p p e l. E ven as s um i ng thatM s . B oukni ght ’ s aft er - the- fac tdepos i t i on t es t i m onyabouther bel i efs and under s t andi ngs m i ghtal one pr ovi de the bas i s forr ecove ryundera br eac h of i m pl i ed contr actorpr om i s s oryes t oppel theory , M r . Y oung r el i es onl yon a s ni ppetof her t est i m on y . H e fai l s t o n ote that M s. B ou kn i gh tal so speci fi cal l yt est i fi ed thatthere i s no m an d atoryp rog ressive d isci p li n e sy stem fo r i nt ent i onalt i m e kee pi ng vi ol at i ons , and ter m in a tio n f

o llo w s im m e d iate lyw h e n e v e r th e e v id e n c e su g g e sts th a t an e m p lo y e e f a ils to c lo c k o u t w ith a n in te n t to o b ta in p a yf o r w o rk n e v e r p e rf

o rm e d . See A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. a t1 8 9 [ 3 4 : 5 - 3 5 : 1 7 ] ( n o t i n g th a tf o ri n t e n t i o n a l i n f

r a c t i o n s o f

th e t i m e k e e p i n g p o l i c y, “[t ] her e i s no pr ogr es s i ve di s ci pl i ne” a nd “[i f] y ou s t eal fr om the company , y ou get t erm i nat ed fr om the company ”) . T hus , ther e i s no i ndi cat i on thatD i l l on had done anythi ng t o m odi fythe at - w i l l r el at i ons hi p w i th M r . Y oung, atl eas tw i th r es pectt o an in te n tio n a l e f

f o rt to c h e a t th e tim e k e e p in g s y s te m . Second , M r . Y oung poi nt s us t o a s t at emental l egedl ym ade byan uni dent i fi ed D i l l on tr ai neri ndi cat i ng that , r atherthan bei ng fi r ed i m m edi at el yfori ni t i al vi ol at i ons of the t erm s of empl oym entout l i ned i n the D i l l on tr ai ni ng m anual , “y ou getw r i t t en up, ” and-20-

thatthe onl ybas i s fori m m edi at e t erm i nat i on i s “s l eepi ng on the j ob. ” See A p p ell an t’ s A pp. at91 [275: 23- 276: 4] . B utthe empl oym entm anual pr ovi ded t o M r . Y oung sp e c if ica llysta tes th a t th e “ f

a ilu re to f

o llo w th e [ ] p o licie s a n d p ro c e d u re s [ c o n tain e d in the manual ] m ayr es ul ti n di s ci pl i naryact i on up t o and i ncl udi ng t erm i nat i on, w hi ch may i ncl ude di s char ge on the fi rst off ense . ” S e e id . at11 9 (em ph asi s added ). T he m anu al al so out l i nes the t i m ekee pi ng pr ocedur es and adds that“r ecor di ng t i m e on y ourt i m e ca r d, tim e c lo c k s, o r tim e a n d a tten d a n c e f o r w o rk n o t p e rf

o rm e d w ill b e c o n sid e re d in vi ol at i on of thi s pol i cy , l eadi ng t o di s ci pl i naryact i ons up t o and i ncl udi ng t erm i nat i on. ” Id . at124. M r . Y oung poi nt s us t o no evi dence s ugges t i ng thatD i l l on convey ed t o hi m an i nt entt o be bound bythe tr ai ner ’ s al l eged s t at ement s contr adi ct i ng i t s pol i cym anual , nor is th e re a n ye v id e n tiary ba sis f o r u s to f in d th a t su c h sta tem e n ts, if m a d e , w e re m a d e in s uch a w ayas t o j us t i fyM r . Y oung i n thi nki ng thattheyoverr ode the company ’ s pol i cy m a n u a l a n d th a t h is e m p lo ym e n t c o n s titu te d a c c e p ta n c e o f th e a d d itio n a l te rm s . See Keenan , 7 3 1 P .2 d a t 7 1 1 ; E vens on , 8 7 9 P .2 d a t 4 0 8 -0 9 . In d e e d , the e v id e n c e o n th is s cor e i s verym uch t o t he contr ary : M r . Y oung conce ded i n hi s ow n depos i t i on thati tw as his cl ear und ers t and i ng that the int enti on al fal si fi cat i on of ti m e records w as an o ffen se th a t w o u ld le a d to im m e d ia te te rm in a tio n b yD illo n . See A ppel l ant ’ s A pp. at85 [242: 2- 6 ]. T hird , M r. Y o u n g p o in ts u s to a p u tativ e a d m iss io n b yM r. L e sle yd u rin g h is depos i t i on thathe “f

ai l ed t o conducta compl et e i nves t i gat i on. ” See A p p e lla n t’ s B r. a t 2 2 . I n fac t , how ever , M r . L es l eyonl yconce ded that , had he s een M r . Y oung’ s t i m e ca r ds for-21-

h im self (rathe r th an relyo n M s. H am m er’s d esc ri p ti o n o f th em ) an d n o ti ce d that M r. Y o u n g c lo c k e d o u t at 1 1 :5 8 p .m ., h e “ p ro b a b lyw o u ld h a v e d o n e a m o re in -d e p th i nves t i gat i on. ” See A pp el l ant’ s A pp . at10 9-110 [10 0:20-101 : 1]. A s w i th M s. B oukni ght ’ s t es t i m ony , w e have no evi dence s ugges t i ng thatD i l l on everconvey ed anythi ng t o M r . Y oung dur i ng the cour s e of hi s empl oym entr egar di ng the natur e and s cope of anyi nves t i gat i on t o w hi ch he w oul d be ent i t l ed foral l eged vi ol at i ons of the c o m p a n y ’s tim e k e e p in g p o licie s. In a d d iti o n , M r. L e sle y ’s d e p o sitio n tes tim o n ym e re ly i ndi cat es w hataddi t i onal pr oces s m i ghthave be en due if cert ai n addi t i onal i nform at i on had bee n befor e hi m . I tdoes not , byi t s el f, s ugges tthatM r . L es l eyw as obl i ged byany c o m p a n yp ro c e d u re (le t alo n e b yter m s c o m m u n ica ted to M r. Y o u n g d u rin g h is e m p lo ym e n t) to se e k o u t th a t ad d iti o n a l in f o rm a tio n o n h is o w n in iti a tiv e – th a t is, to rev iew the e lectron ic pu n ch ca rds h im self ra ther tha n (as h e d id) relyo n M s. H am m er’s d e sc rip tio n o f

th e ir c o n ten ts. A t m o st, M r. L e sle y ’s te stim o n yc a n b e re a d a s a c a n d id aft er - the- fac tacknow l edgmentthathe w i s hed he ha d notr el i ed on M s . H amm erbuthad i ns t ead r evi ew ed the el ectr oni c punch c ar d dat a forhi m s el f, notas i ndi cat i ng that c o m p a n yp o lic yb e f

o re -t h e -f a c t p ro m is e d a d if

f e re n t o r m o re th o ro u g h in v e s tig a tio n . W h ile th e re su lt o f

th e in v e stig a tio n in to M r. Y o u n g ’s tim e k e e p in g p ra c tice s m a yw e ll h av e b ee n w ron g , an d w h il e tha t w o u ld b e so m ethin g to b e re g rett ed b yall inv o lved , M r. Y oung has adduce d no evi dence i n the r ecor d befor e us s ugges t i ng thathe w as ent i t l ed, as a m att er o f im p li ed co n tr ac t or p rom issoryesto p p el, to an inv esti g ati o n an ym o re el abor at e than the one he r ece i ved.-22- *** F o r th e re a so n s d isc u ss e d a b o v e , the d istric t co u rt’s e n tryo f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favo r of D i l l on i s AFF I RM ED .