2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

4-19-2006 

# T om a s so v . B o eing C o

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al
D ocke t N o . 04-4657

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin

. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" T om as s o v . Boein g C o " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1179. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/1179P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 4657

J O SEPH J

. TO M A SSO , Appel l ant

v.
T HE BO E I NG C OM P ANY

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N o. 03- cv- 04220) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d m u n d V . L u d w ig

A r gued J anuary18, 2006 B e f o re : R O T H , F U E N T E S , a n d B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudges

.

( Fi l ed A pr i l 19, 2006 )2 M AR K S

. S CH E F F E R ( AR GUE D) Pom er ant z & Scheff

er 21 Sout h 12t h St r eet R oom 700 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ant
M

. F RA NC E S RY AN ( AR GUE D) D ec h ert 1717 A r ch St r eet 4000 B el l A t l ant i c Tow er Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

B E C K E R , C i r cui tJudge.
J os eph J

. T om as s o appe als the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s gr antof
su m m a ryju d g m e n t ag a in st h im in a n a g e d is c r im in a tio n su it aga inst the B oei ng C om pany , w hi ch l ai d hi m off dur i ng a r educt i on i n for ce ( “R I F”)

. T om as s o as s ert ed cl ai m s undert he A ge D i s cr i m i nat i on i n E m pl oym entA ct( A D E A ) , the Penns y l vani a H um an R el at i ons A ct ( “PH R A ”) , and the E m pl oy ee Ret i r ement Incom e Secur i t yA ct( “ER I SA ”)

. T he A D E A a n d P H R A c l a i m s a r e g o v e r n e d b y McD onnel lD ougl asSee Fasold v. Jus t i ce , 4 0 9 F

. 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 3 -84 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). 1
T o m asso d id n o t resp o n d to B o eing ’s m o ti o n fo r sum m ary 2 j udgm enton hi s E R I SA cl ai m , and he does not pr es s t hi s cl ai m on ap p ea l. W e there fo re af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j u d g me n ta g a i n s tTo ma s s o o n th e ERI S A c l a i m. 3 C or p. v. G r een , 411 U

. S. 792 ( 1973)

. A l t hough B oei ng 1
con c e d e d t h a tTo ma s s o ma d e o u ta p r i ma f a c i e c a s e o f

a ge d isc rim in a tio n , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t T o m a ss o f

a iled , in th e p re tex t p h a se , to p ro d u c e su f f ic ien t ev id e n c e to d isc re d it B o e in g ’s ra tio n a le s f

o r h is la y o f

f

. B efor e thi s C our t , as before t he D i s t r i ctC our t , B oei ng off ered several reas on s for T om asso’ s lay o f f. S om e of these
r at i onal es , i f bel i eved, coul d ful l yexpl ai n the dec i s i on; other exp l a n a t i o n s a p p e a r p a r t i a l a n d s e c o n d a r y
. W e c o n c l u d e t hat T om as s o adduce d evi dence s uffi ci entt o cr eat e a genui ne i s s ue o f m ate ri a l fa ct as to w h ethe r B o eing ’s pro ff ere d rea so n s are pr et ext u al. Fi r s t , underourdeci s i on i n Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 32 F. 3d 759 ( 3d C i r
. 1994) , T om as s o h as s how n s uffi ci ent im p laus ibil it ies an d inco n sist en cies in B o eing ’s prim ary r at i onal es t o avoi d s um m aryj udgm en t

. Second, a r at i onal fac t fi ndercoul d di s m i s s t he s econda r yr eas ons as pr et extual , not becau se theyplay e d no rol e i n T om asso’ s l ay off bu tbecau se theyca n n o t exp lai n th e la y o ff su ff ici en tl y
. W e w il l th ere fo re rever se the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s grantof sum m aryj ud gm ent agai nst T om asso on h i s A D E A and P H R A cl ai m s. 2

I. F a cts4 T om asso began w or ki ng forB oei ng i n 1962, w hen he
w a s 1 8

. I n 1 9 7 9 , h e e n ter e d th e S u p p lier Q u a lityD e p a rtm e n t, w hi ch o v e r s e e s t h e q u a l i t yo f a i r c r a f tc o mpo n e n tp a r t s t o be deli vered t o B oeing by i t s sub con t ract ors. E ven tuall yT om asso w a s p ro m o ted to P ro c u re m e n t Q u a lityS p e c ialist 4 , p lac in g h im att he seco nd highesto f fou r pr ocu rem ent qual i t yspeci al i st pos i t i ons
. Pr ocur ementqual i t y s peci al i s t s w oul d vi s i tt he s i t es w her e componentpar t s w er e m anufa ctur ed, ver i fy t he qual i t yof t he p art s t o b e deli vered, and m on i t or the sub con t ract ors’
o p e ra tio n s
. I n O ct oberof 2001, af

ter ha vi ng w or ked atB oei ng for
n e a rly 4 0 y e a rs, T o m a ss o re c e iv e d a 6 0 -d a yn o tice o f p o ss ib le la y o f f

. A ft erw ar ds , al t hough he had be en a sa l ar i ed empl oy ee, h e w a s o f

f e re d o n lya n h o u rlyp o sitio n in a d if f e re n t d e p a rtm e n t. T om as s o r efus ed t o acc eptt hi s m aj ordemot i on, vi ew i ng i t as “a
s l ap i n t he fa ce. ” H e tho u g h t tha tacc ept i ng the new pos i t i on w o u ld b e tan tam o u n t to “ g o in g b a c k 4 0 y e a rs a n d sta rtin g a ll
o v e r a g a in .” T om as s o w as t hus l ai d off i n J anua ry o f 2 0 02 at
a g e 5 9 , fo llo w in g 2 2 y e a rs in th e S u p p lier Q u a lityD e p a rtm e n t, a n d a to tal of 39 y ears of service t o B oeing. H e w as able t o r et i r e and c ol l ecta pens i on. T o m a ss o ’s la y o f

f re su lted f

ro m B o e in g ’s d e c is io n in 2001 t o r educe oper at i ng cos t s and overhead byt w entyper cent att he s i t e w her e Tom as s o w or ked. A s par tof the pl an, B oei ng u n d ert oo k a R IF i n the Su pp l i er Q uali t yD epart m ent. S ho rt ly befor e the R I F, B oei ng had done a w ayw i t h a ret ent i on t ot em r at i ng s y s t em th at had be en us ed t o i dent i fyw hi ch empl oy ees w oul d be l ai d off i n the eve ntof a RIF. U ndert he r et ent i on t ot em ra t i ng s y s t em, any empl oy ee, s uch as Tom as s o, w ho had
w orked a tB oeing fo r 30 y ears or m ore w a s in th e group l east l i kel yt o be l ai d off. T he re t ent i on t ot em r at i ng s y s t em had been5 in p lace fo r at l ea st 1 0 y e a rs prior to 2 0 0 1 , the y ea r th e R IF began. Ra t he r t h a n u s i n g t h e r e t e n t i o n t o t e m r a t i n g s y s t e m, B o eing d ec ided w h ich em p loy ee s to lay o ff b yh av ing m an ag ers rat e t he m o n e v a l uati on form s. T he eva l uat i on form forthe Suppl i erQ ual ityD epart m entr equi r ed thatempl oy ees be assi gn ed a sco re on a scal e from on e t o fi ve in ni ne categori es: o rg a n iza tio n a l sk ill s, p ro b lem so lv in g , q u a lity o f w o rk , q u a n tity of w or k, t e c h n i c a l c o mpe t e n c e , l e a d e r s h i p , a t t i t ude,
comm uni cat i ons , and t eamw or k. A s cor e of one m eant“[n] eeds [i ] m pr ovement , ” t hr ee meant“[a ] cce pt abl e, ” and f i ve meant

“ [ s]tro n g .” T h e e m p lo y e e s re c e iv e d a n o v e ra ll sc o re e q u a l to th e s u m o f

th e s c o re s in e a c h o f

th e n in e c a te g o ri e s
. P rio r to th e e v a lu a tio n , em p lo y e e s w e r e p lac e d in to gr oup s w i t h ot herempl oy ees per form i ng the s ame ors i m i l ar w or k. T he empl oy ees i n T om as s o’ s gr oup w er e s upervi s ed by
s e v e r a l d i f

f e r e n t m a n a g e r s , a n d t h e m a n a g e r s r a t e d t h e i r o wn empl oy ees
. T om as s o w as eval uat ed byhi s m anage r , J os eph W ood. T om as s o r ece i ved a s core o f 21, r anki ng l as toutof 43 empl oy ees i n t he Suppl i erQ ual i t yD epart m ent

. H e r ece i ved the foll ow i ng scores i n the i nd i vidual cat ego ri es: O rgani zat i on al S kil l s: 2 Pr obl em S ol vi ng: 3 Q ual i t yof W or k: 2 Q uant i t yof W or k: 2 T echni cal C om pet ence : 5 L eade r s hi p: 2 A t t i tude: 2 C om m un i cat i on s: 1 T eamw or k: 26 D es pi t e T om as s o’ s l ow over al l s cor e, W ood di d notcons i der T om as s o a bad e m pl oy ee. I n fac t , W ood cons i der ed al l o f the empl oy ee s w h o w er e eva l uat ed t o be “good pe r form i ng e m p lo y e e [ s ].” T he empl oy ees i n a gr oup w er e r anked a gai ns teac h ot her b a s e d o n th e iro v e ra ll s c o re s
. E m pl oy ees w er e then s el ect ed for l ay off, begi nni ng w i t h the l ow es t

- r anked m ember i n a gr oup and
m ovi ng up t he l i s tunt i l t he des i r ed number o f empl oy ees had been i dent i fi ed. I n t he Suppl i erQ ual i t yD epart m ent , t he s even e m pl oy ees w i t h th e lo w estscores w ere s el ect ed fo r l ay off

. A l l of these empl oy ees w er e over the age of 40. T he ol des templ oy ee i n the S u p p lier Q u a lity D e p a rtm e n t (a g e 7 0 ) w a s ra ted se c o n d to las t. A l l e mpl o y e e s u n d e r t h e a g e o f f o r t y wer e r e t a i n e d , and no empl oy ee unde rt he age of fort yw as r at ed l ow er t han fourt eenth. H o w e v e r, o n lyf

iv e o f 4 3 e m p lo y e e s in th e S u p p lier Q u a lity D epart m entar e under40, and fi ve of t he 36 r et ai ned empl oy ees w er e Tom as s o’ s age or ol der at t he t i m e of the eva l uat i on ( ages 5 8 , 6 1 , 6 1 , 6 3 , an d 6 8 ). T o m asso b rou g h t su it in the D istri ct C o u rtfo r th e E astern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, al l egi ng t hatB oei ng l ai d hi m off due to h i s age. I n an amended compl ai nt , T om as s o cl ai m ed vi ol at i ons of t he A D E A , PH R A , and ER I SA

. B oei ng m oved for
s um m aryj udgm enton al l count s
. B eca us e the McD o n n e ll D ou glas b u r d e n - s h i f

t i n g fr amework g o v e r n s b o t h t h e AD EA cl ai m and t he PH R A cl ai m , and bec aus e B oei ng conce ded that T om as s o had made outa pr i m a fac i e cas e of a ge di s cr i m i nat i on, t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s di s cus s i on focus ed on the pr et extphas e. T he D i s t r i c tCou rtfound thatT om as s o fai l ed t o demonstr at e that B oei ng’ s pr offe r ed r at i onal es forhi s l ay off w er e pr et extual , and g ra n ted su m m a ryju d g m e n t ag a in s t T o m a ss o o n a ll o f h isT he D i s t r i ct C our t had j ur i s di ct i on over T om as s o’ s fede r al 3 and s t at e l aw cl ai m s pur s uant t o 28 U

. S. C

. §§ 1361 and 1367, and
w e have appel l at e j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i c tCour t ’ s gr a ntof s umm a r yj ud gmen ta ga i ns tTomas so de novo , an d w e c o n sid e r th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to h im , a s h e is th e n o n m o v in g p a rt y
. See S & H Ha r dw ar e & S uppl y C o. v. Y

el l ow Trans

p. , I nc. , 432 F. 3d 550, 554 ( 3d C i r. 2 0 0 5 ).
O r di nar i l y , t o m ake outa pr i m a fa ci e ca s e under

4 McD o n n el lD ougl as , “ t h e p l a i n t i f f mus ts h o w ( 1 ) th a th e was at l eas tfor t yy ear s ol d, ( 2) t hat he w as fi r ed, ( 3) thathe w as qual i fi ed fort he j ob fr om w hi ch he w as fi r ed, and ( 4) t hat he ‘ w as r epl ace d bya s uffi cien tl y y oungerper s on t o cr eat e an i nfer ence of age di s cr i m i nat i on. ’ ” Fakete v. A etna, I nc. , 3 0 8 F

. 3 d 3 3 5 , 3 3 8 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ) (c itatio n o m itte d ). H o w e v e r, w h e re a n e m p lo y e e is t erm i nat ed dur i ng a R I F, t he fourt h el ementof the pr i m a f aci e case becomes w hethert he empl oy err et ai ned empl oy ees w ho do not b e lo n g to th e p ro te c te d c la s s
. Show al t er v. U ni ver s i t y of P i t t s bur gh Medi cal C ent er , 1 9 0 F

. 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 4 -23 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ).
7 c laim s. T o m a ss o f

iled a tim e lyn o tice o f

a p p e a l. 3 II. A n alysi s Fu e n tes v . P e rs k ie , 32 F. 3d 759 ( 3d C i r
. 1994) , gui des us as t o t he bur dens t hat an empl oy ee and an empl oy er bearw hen t h e e mpl o y e rmov e s f

o rs u mma r yj u d g me n to n a Mc D o n n e ll Dou g l as cl ai m
. B eca us e Tom as s o, as B oei ng conce des , has
m a d e o u t a p rim a f

a c ie c a se , the b u rd e n o f p ro d u c tio n sh if

ts to B o eing , w h ich m u st art iculate a legitim a te no n d iscri m inato ry ra tio n a le f

o r h is la y o f

f

. Id

. a t 7 6 3

. T h is b u rd e n is “ re lativ e ly

48 l i ght , ” and the empl oy erneed onl y “i ntr oduc[e ] evi dence w hi ch, t aken as true, w ou l d p erm i tt he co n c lu sion t hat there w as a nondi s cr im inat or yr eas on fort he unfa vor abl e empl oym ent deci s i on. ” I

d. O nce B oei ng art i cul at es a nondi s cr i m i nat oryr eas on, T o m a ss o m u st re sp o n d b yc iti n g e v id e n c e th a t th e ra tio n a le is p re te x tu a l. Id

. A s w e have not ed, l ow eval uat i on s cor es m aybe a pr et extfordi s cr i m i nat i on, es peci al l yw her e, as her e, an empl o y e ru s e s s u b

j e c t i v e c r i t e r i a s u c h a s “ a t t i tu d e ” a nd

“ t e a m w o rk ” to ra te its e m p lo y e e s
. See G oos by v. Johns on & Johns on Med. , I

nc. , 228 F. 3d 313, 320 (3d C i r
. 2000) ( “‘ Subj ect i ve eval u ati ons ar e more s us cept i bl e of abus e and
m or e l i kel yt o m as k pr et ext

. ’ ”) ( quot i ng W eldon v. Kr af

t , I nc. , 8 9 6 F .2 d 7 9 3 , 7 9 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 0 )); s ee al s o Li u v. A m w ay C or

p. , 347 F

. 3d 1125, 1136 ( 9th C i r
. 2003) ( “W her e t erm i nat i on deci s i ons r el yon s ubj ect i ve eval uat i ons , car eful anal y s i s of p o s s ib le im p e rm is s ib le m o tiv a tio n s is w a rr a n te d . . . .” ). In o r d e r to c re a te a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f

a c t as to w hethert he p roffered reas on s ar e pret extual , T om ass o m ust “poi ntt o s om e evi dence , di r ect or ci r cumst ant i al , fr om w hi ch a fa ctfind er c o u ld r ea so n ab ly eith er ( 1 ) d isbe li ev e th e e m p loy er’s
ar t i cul at ed l egi t i m at e r eas ons ; or( 2) bel i eve thatan i nvi di ous di s cr i m i nat or yr eas on w as m or e l i kel y t han not a m ot i vat i ng or det erm i nat i ve ca us e of t he empl oy er ’ s act i on. ” Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at764. T om as s o m ust d o m o re t han s how thatB oei ng w as

“ w ro n g o r m is ta k e n ” in d e c id in g to la yh im o f f

. Id

. a t 7 6 5

. He
m us t“pr es entevi dence contr adi ct i ng the core f acts p u t fo rw ard byt he empl oy eras t he l egi t i m at e r eas on for i t s deci s i on. ” Ka u tz v. Met -Pro C orp ., 4 1 2 F .3 d 4 6 3 , 4 6 7 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (e m p h a sis ad d ed). I n ot herw or ds , T om as s o m us t“demonstr at e s uch
w eakne s s es , i m pl aus i bi l i t i es , i ncons i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , or9 contr adi ct i ons i n t he empl oy er ’ s p r o f f e r e d l egi t i m at e r eas ons for i t s act i on t hata r eas onabl e fa ct fi ndercoul d r at i onal l yfi nd t hem ‘u n w o rth yo f

c re d e n c e ,’ an d h e n c e in f e r ‘th a t th e e m p lo y e r d id not act for[the as s er t ed] non- di s cr i m i nat oryr eas ons
. ’ ” Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at 765 ( al t er at i on i n or i gi nal ) ( footnot e om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng Ez old v. W

ol f , B l ock, Schor r& Sol is - C ohen , 983 F. 2d 509, 531, 5 3 3 (3 d C ir.1 9 9 2 ); Jos ey v
. John R

. H ol l i ngs w or th C or

p. , 996 F .2 d 6 3 2 , 6 3 8 (3 d C ir.1 9 9 3 ); C hauhan v. M

. A lf ieri C o. , I

nc. , 8 9 7 F

. 2 d 1 2 3 , 1 2 8 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 0 )). W e agr ee w i t h t he di s s ent that a dec i s i on t o l ayoff a n em p loy ee in a R I F di ffe r s fr om a dec i s i on t o fi r e an e m pl oy ee d u r i n g o r d i n a r y c i r c u ms t a n c e s
. I n e i t h e r s i tu a t i o n , h o we v e r , we appl yt he McD on ne l lD ou glas f ram ew ork. In ordi naryt i m es, empl oy ees ar e fi r ed for p o o rper form ance ; i n a R I F, even q u ali fied em p loy ee s are lai d o ff in ord er t o red u ce p erso n n el. In fa ct, W o o d test ifi ed that the in d ividu als selec ted f o r l ay o ff w ere n o t b a d e m p lo y e e s. B u t ev e n in a g e n u in e R IF (o n e th a t is
m o ti v ated o n a p rog ram m ati c lev e l b yec o n o m ic co n ce rns), i ndi vi dual s m ay be s el ect ed for l ay off on t he bas i s of age

. For t hi s r eas on, even i n a R I F, w e us e the McD onnel lD ougl as fram ew ork t o exp ose such dis cri m i nati on
. T he em ploy er m ust h a v e a g e -n e u tra l re a so n s f o r d e c id in g to lay of f c e rta in empl oy ees , and the empl oy ee c an cha l l enge thes e re as ons as p re te x tu a l. See, e. g. , Sh ow alter v. U niv. of Pit t

sburgh Med. C tr. , 19 0 F. 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 6

- 3 8 ( 3 d Ci r
. 1 9 9 9 ) ( c o n s i d e r i n g whe t h er t he
em p loy er’s rati o n ales fo r term inating an em p loy ee d u ri n g a R IF
w ere p retex tual). A s w e s t at ed i n Fuent es , th e e m p l o ye e n e e d n o ta l w a ys offe revi dence s uffi ci entto d iscr edi tal l of the r at i onal es advanc ed byt he empl oy er
. “I f t he defenda nt pr offe r s a bagf ul of legi t i m at e reas on s, and t he p l ai nti ff m anag es t o cast10 s ubs t ant i al doubton a fa i r num berof them, t he pl ai nt i ff maynot need t o d iscr edi tt he r emai nder

. ” 32 F. 3d a t 7 6 4 n .7 ; see al so Ka u tz , 4 1 2 F .3 d a t 4 6 7 ; A br am s on v. W i l l i am P at ers on C ol l

. of N ew Jer s ey , 260 F. 3d 265, 283 ( 3d C i r
. 2001)

. I n Fuent es , we exp l ai ned t hat the rej ect i on of som e exp l anati o n s m ayso underm i ne the empl oy er ’s c redi bi l i t yas t o enabl e a r at i onal fac t fi ndert o di s bel i eve t he re m ai ni ng r at i onal es , even w her e the
em ploy ee fail s t o p roduce evidence p art i culart o tho se r at i onal es
. 32 F. 3d at764 n. 7. B oei n g o ffe r s s ever al age- neutr al expl anat i ons for T om as s o’ s l ow s cor e and t he cons equent deci s i on t o l ayhi m off. W e w il l con side r th ese rati o n ales in tu rn, ap p ly ing the s tand ard des cr i bed above

. A
. L ack of Interest i n P rocess V ali d ati on A sses sm en ts B o e in g ’s f

o re m o st e x p lan a tio n o f T o m a ss o ’s la y o f

f is th a t h e se e m e d u n in ter e ste d in P ro c e ss V a lid a tio n A ss e ss m e n ts (“ P V A s” ), a typ e o f

in sp e c tio n th a t B o e in g u se d to m o n ito r its
s ubcontr act or s
. U ndert he t r adi t i onal s y s t em of st andar d s our ce i ns pect i ons , a B oei ng empl oy ee w oul d s i m pl yi ns pectthe pr oduct s r eady for del i very t o B oei ng. I n contr as t , a PV A does
n ot i nv olve actual produ ct i nspecti on s bu t i nst ead predi ct s a s uppl i er ’ s abi l i t yt o pr oduce s at i s fac t oryp roduct s bas ed on a
r evi ew o f t he s uppl i er ’ s pr oduct i on capa ci t y
. T he Suppl i er Q ual i t y D epart m ent w as i ncr eas i ng i t s us e of PV A s , and W ood char act er i zed t hi s s hi ft as “the pr i m ary focus and goal o f o ur o rg a n iz a tio n .” W o o d test i fi ed in hi s depo si t i on that he gav e T om asso l ow s co res i n atl eas tfourcat egor i es beca us e he thoughtthat T o m a ss o lac k e d in ter e st in p e rf o rm in g P V A s. A c c o rd in g to W ood, T om as s o s ai d that“he w as n’ t r eal l yan advoc at e t o the P V A p ro c e ss a n d w a s n o t co m f o rta b le w o rk in g w ith it. ” In h isPer form ance devel opm entpar t ner s hi p pl ans appe ar t o be 5 form s t hatempl oy ees fi r s tfi l l outthemsel ves and then di s cus s and
re v is e w ith th e irm a n a g e rs
. 11 a f f id a v it, h o w e v e r, T o m a s s o d e n ies m a k in g su c h a sta tem e n t: “A tno t i m e di d I expr es s t o M r
. W ood t hat I w as noti nt er es t ed in P V A , and I never t old hi m t hat I w ou l d n ot par t i ci pate i n PV A or t he t r ans fer t o t he PV A m ethod, or t hat I w as notw i l l i ng t o acc eptnew change s
. ” Wo o d f u r t h e rs t a t e d t h a tT o ma s s o f a i l e d t o a tt e n d a P VA pl anni ng s es s i on. T om as s o , h o w ever , cl ai m s t hathe di d not at t end the s es s i on becaus e i tw as notm andat ory , and beca us e he
w a s h a v in g h e a lth p ro b lem s th a t w o u ld h a v e m a d e it d if f icu lt t o t ravel t o the ses si on , w hich w as hel d in N ew O rl eans. W oo d als o tes t i fi ed thatT om asso di d n ot i n it i al l yl i st devel opi ng PV A s ki l l s as a goal i n a per form ance devel opm ent par t ner s hi p pl an. A ddi t i onal l y , W ood s t at ed t hatpr ocur ement 5 q u ali tysp ec ial ist s w ere ex p ec ted to iden ti fy , o u t o f the s u p p li ers w i t h w hi ch theyw or ked, thos e t hat w er e r eady forthe tr ans i t i on fr om s t andar d s our ce i ns pect i ons t o PV A s , even i f m anage m ent had no t al ready desi gn at ed t he supp l i ers as cand i dates for PV A s. Acc o r d i n g t o W o o d , To ma s s o d i d n o te n g a g e i n “ t r a n s i t i o n PVA act i vi t i es ” fors up p li er s thatm anage m enthad notal r eady des i gnat ed. T om as s o’ s aff

i davi t p ai nt s a verydi ffe r entpi ctur e. T om as s o s t at es t hat he w as one of onl y t hr ee empl oy ees s el ect ed to p a rticip a te in P V A a c tiv iti e s f o r a lar g e su p p lier lo c a ted in M id d le R iv e r, M a ry lan d . T o m a ss o w o rk e d o n th is P V A in 2001, t he y eari n w hi ch B o eing l ai d hi m off. W ood char act er i zes t he M i ddl e R i verpr oj ectas a PV A t r ai ni ng, and12 cl ai m s t h at T o m ass o di d notpart i ci pat e as avi dl yas ot her empl o y e e s
. Howev e r , W o o d c o n c e d e d th a tth e M i d d l e Ri v er t eam di d a good j ob and t hat as far as he knew , T om as s o w as an i n t e g r a l p a r to f

t h e t e a m. T om as s o al s o cl ai m s thatdur i ng r evi ew s i n A ugus tand D ec em b er 2 0 0 1 , W o o d d id n o t st ate tha t T o m asso ’s per form ance , i ncl udi ng hi s w or k on PV A s , w as defi ci enti n any r es pect

. I n fac t , W ood w r ot e on Tom asso’ s eval uat i on for J anu a r yt h r o u g h Dec e mbe r2 0 0 1 : “ J o e

— g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v es achieved to a cceptabl e l evels for this y ear. Ini t i al P V A process s t ar t ed w i t h s uppl y bas e. ” W ood al s o m arked on the eva l uat i on t h a tT o ma s s o h a d me te x p e c t a t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o p l a n n i n g P VA aud i t s on h i s sel ect ed sup pli ers
. F in a lly , T o m a ss o sta tes th a t h e b e g a n to tr a n s iti o n h is p rim a rysu p p lier to P V A s, a n d c o m p lete d th e tra n sitio n in D e c e m b e r o f

2 0 0 1 ( a f

te r h e w a s s e lec ted f

o r la y o f f ). T h is
s uppl i eracc ount ed fora ful l 75 per cent of Tom as s o’ s w or kl oad. I n s hor t , T om as s o and W ood t el l r adi cal l ydi ffe r ent s t or i es aboutT om as s o’ s i nt ere st i n PV A s
. A fac t fi nderw ho
cr edi t ed Tom as s o’ s t es t i m onycoul d concl ude thatW ood gave h im a c c e p tab le e v a lu a tio n s f o r h is P V A w o rk a n d n e v e r to ld hi m t hathe nee ded t o i m pr ove or inc r eas e hi s PV A w or k, that T om as s o began t o t r ans i t i on hi s pr i m ary s uppl i er t o PV A s , and t hathe w as s el ect ed t o par t i ci pat e i n an i m por t antPV A pr oj ect s oon bef o re h e w as l ai d off. T he fa ct fi ndercoul d fur t her conclud e tha t T o m asso n ev er e x p resse d d isi n terest i n P V A s, and th a t h e m iss e d a P V A tra n sitio n m e e tin g so lelyf o r h e a lth
reas on s. S i nce T om asso’ s evi den ce rel at es dir ect l y t o hi s i nter est in a n d a p titu d e f

o r P V A s, it inv o lv e s “ c o re f a c ts” re lev a n t to B o e in g ’s e x p la n a tio n f

o r T o m a s s o ’s d is m is s a l. S e e Ka u tz , 41213 F .3 d a t 4 6 7

. T o m a ss o ’s e v id e n c e , if b e liev e d , d o e s n o t m e re ly
s ugges tt hatt he l ow s cor e as s i gned byW ood w as “w r ong or m is ta k e n ,” Fuent es , 3 2 F .3 d a t 7 6 5 , o r th a t W o o d in n o c e n tly
m i s per cei ved Tom as s o’ s i nt er es ti n PV A s
. R ather , one w ho beli eved T om asso’ s affi dav i tcou l d find “such w eakn esses , i m pl aus i b i l i t i e s , i n c o ns i s t enci es , i ncoher enci es , or c o n tra d ictio n s” in B o e in g ’s e x p lan a tio n a s to d e e m it

“‘ unw or t hyof cr edenc e. ’ ” Id

. at765 ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. T o be
s ur e, T om as s o di s cr edi t s B oei ng’ s r at i onal e i n par tbypoi nt i ng to e x te r n a l e v id e n c e , su c h a s e a rlier e v a lu a tio n s a n d h is par t i ci pat i on i n t he M i ddl e R i ver Pr oj ect

. B uts uch evi dence can b e u s e d to s h o w p re te x t. See She r i dan v. E

. I

. D uP ontde N em ours and C o. , 100 F. 3d 1061, 1073-74 (3d C i r
. 1996) ( en banc) ( s t at i ng t hat an empl oy ee c oul d s how pr et exti n par tby
a d d u c in g “ a f

f ir m a tiv e e v id e n c e o f h e r o w n a c c o m p lis h m e n ts ,” i n c l u d i n g a wa r d s , a p r o mo t i o n , a n d a s a l a r y i n c r e a s e )

. I n s u m, T om as s o’ s al l eged l ack of i nt er es t i n PV A s does notpr ovi de a
s u f f ic ie n t b a s is f

o r s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. B
. R ef usal T o Share T echni cal K now l edge W ood al s o s t at ed thatT om as s o r ece i ved a l ow s cor e on hi s eval uat i on beca us e he w as unw i l l i ng t o s har e hi s t echni cal know l edge w i t h ot herB oei ng empl oy ees
. W ood t es t i fi ed: “I
can a l m os tquot e [Tom as s o] — ‘ I w antt o be l eftal one t o do
a n d h a n d le m yp a rt o f

th e su p p lyb a se . I’m n o t in ter e ste d in t r a i n i n g p e o p l e o rp r o v i d i n g wo r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s wi t h s o me of m yot herpeer s i n t hos e ar eas
. ’ ” Tom as s o, how ever , deni es th a t su c h a n e x c h a n g e o c c u rre d : “I n e v e r to ld M r. W o o d th a t I
w ant ed t o be al one orl eftal one, and I nevert ol d M r
. W ood t hatI w as noti nt er es t ed i n t r ai ni ng peopl e orbei ng i nvol ved in w o rk in g re la tio n s h ip s w ith m yp e e rs .” T o m asso ’s af

fid av itflatl yco n tr ad ict s W o o d ’sW ood s t at ed t hat he i nform ed T om as s o of the pr obl em and 6 th a t T o m a ss o c o rre c ted it a t s o m e p o in t. T o m asso , h o w ev er, cl ai m s t hatW ood neverm ent i oned anypr obl ems w i t h hi s s uppl i er f o ld e rs
. 14 depos i t i on on t hi s poi nt

. T om as s o deni es havi ng m ade the
verys t at ementt hatappar ent l yconvi nced W ood t hathe w as unw i l l i ng t o s har e hi s t echni cal know l edge. T hus , our deci s i on i n Fuen t es p re c lu d e s s u m m a ryju d g m e n t o n th is b a s is

. C
. B oei ng’ s R em ai ni ng R at i onal es B oei ng offe r s addi t i onal r at i onal es , butt hey d o not appea rs uffi ci entt o expl ai n T om as s o’ s l ay off. E ven i f a r at i onal fac t fi nderw oul d have t o concl ude thatt hes e r at i onal es pl ay ed
s om e ro le in T o m a ss o ’s lay o f f , th e f a c tf in d e r w o u ld n o t h a v e to con clud e t hatt heypr ovi de a s uf f i ci ent e x p la n a tio n
. S e e W

h ite
v. C ol um bus Met

. H

ous
. A uth. , 4 2 9 F

. 3 d 2 3 2 , 2 4 5 (6th C ir

. 2005) ( s t at i ng t hata pl ai nt i ff m ay s how pr et ext“bys how i ng t hat t he pr offe r ed r eas on w as i ns uffi ci entt o w arr ant t he cha l l enged
c o n d u c t.”); H

olm es v. P ot t er , 384 F. 3d 356, 361 ( 7th C i r
. 2004) ( [P] r et ext

. . . m aybe pr oved bys how i ng .
. . t hatt he s t at ed
r eas on i s i ns uffi ci entt o w arr antt he adve r s e ac t i on. ”) ( ci t at i on o m itte d ). A s B oeing ap pear s t o conce de, t w o of the r emai ni ng r at i onal es m ay expl ai n t w o of Tom as s o’ s l ow s cor es , butnott he ot hers even. First , W ood t es t i fi ed i n hi s depos i t i on t hat T omas s o r e c e i ve d a s c or e of t w o f or“ or ga ni z a t i on a l s ki l l s” becau se T om asso di d n ot m ai ntai n co m plet e folders on h is
su p p li ers. S ec o n d , W o o d stat ed that T o m asso rec eive d a sc o re

6
o f o n e f o r “ c o m m u n ica tio n s” in p a rt b e c a u se h e w a s d if f icu lt t oT om as s o r epr es ent s t hathe m iss ed meet i ngs beca us e he 7
w as w o rkin g o n sit e a n d w as n ev er told th at he sh o u ld attend m o re m eet i ngs
. H e al s o s t at es t hat he par t i ci pat ed i n everym eet i ng t hat h e w a s t o l d w a s m a n d a t o r y. 15 reach w hil e w orki ng on si t e at his pri m arysupp l i er and b ecause of p oo r att end ance a tw eeklym eet i ng s. 7 E v e n if w e a ss u m e th a t th e se ra tio n a les a d e q u a tely expl ai n T o m ass o’ s l ow s cor es for“or gani zat i onal s ki l l s ” and “comm un i c a t i o n s , ” a r a t i o n a l f a ct fi ndercoul d concl ude thatthey
ar e i nsu ff

ic i entt o expl ai n T om as s o’ s l ow over al l s cor e. A l t hough T om as s o r ece i ved a per fec t s cor e of f i ve i n “t echni cal
c o m p e te n c e ,” h e re c e iv e d a s c o re o f tw o in “ q u a l i ty o f

w o rk ,” “quant i t yof w or k, ” “l eade r s hi p, ” and “ at t i tud e. ” These l ow sco res r emai n unexpl ai ned. I f Tom as s o had r ece i ved hi gher
s cor es i n t hes e orot herar eas , he w oul d have be en r anked hi gh enough t o avoi d bei ng l ai d off. B eca us e Tom as s o need not d e m o n stra te th a t B o e in g ’ s e n tire “ b a g f u l” o f re a so n s is p re te x tu a l, Fuent es , 32 F. 3d at764 n

. 7 , es peci al l yw her e a r at i onal fac t fi ndercoul d concl ude thatt he r eas ons i n ques t i on ar e i ns uffi ci ent, W ood’ s conce r ns aboutT om as s o’ s s uppl i er f o ld e rs a n d m e e tin g a tten d a n c e d o n o t p ro v id e a n a d e q u a te b a sis f o r a g ra n t o f

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. W ood al s o s t at ed i n hi s depos i t i on t hatT om as s o had b e c o m e le s s in v o lv e d w ith su p p liers w h o p ro v id e d d yn a m ic
com po nen t s t o B oeing , e ven t ho ug h T om asso’ s great est e x p e rtise lay i n th is a re a
. H o w e v e r, W o o d ra ise d th is iss u e in
r es pons e t o a depos i t i on ques t i on aboutw hetherTom as s o’ s hi gh l evel of t echni ca l c om pet ence m i ghtoutw ei gh hi s al l eged d e f icie n c ies in o th e r a re a s. T h u s , W o o d d id n o t ap p e a r to c iteTo ma s s o a l s o a p p e a r s t o c o n t e n d th a tth e e v a l u a t i on 8 pr oces s and the R I F w er e partof a br oad pl an to layoff ol der empl oy ees
. W e fi nd no evi dence t o s uppor t t hi s ar gum ent

. T o the ext ent t hat T om as s o bas es hi s ar gum ents ol el yon t he abol i t i on of th e re ten tio n to tem r a tin g sy ste m , w h ich g a v e p re f e re n c e to e m ploy ees w i t h g reat er s enior i t y , his argum ent i s atod ds w i th H az en Paper Co. v. B iggi ns , 507 U

. S. 604 ( 1993)

. I n Hazen P aper , t he Supr eme C our ts t at ed, “[ b ]ec ause a ge and y ear s of
s ervi ce a r e ana l yt i cal l ydi s t i nct , an emp loy er can t ake a ccountof
o n e w h ile ig n o rin g th e o th e r, an d th u s it is in c o rre c t to sa yth a t a deci s i on bas ed on y ear s of s ervi ce i s nece s s ar i l y‘ age ba s ed. ’ ” I d. at611. U ndert hi s pr i nci pl e, B oei ng’ s deci s i on t o r educe p ro tec tio n a g a in st la y o f f f o r e m p lo y e e s w ith g re a ter se n io rity cannot , w i t houtm or e, be equa t ed w i th a n at t empt t o l ayoff ol der
em ploy ees. W e comm entbr i efl yon t he di s s ent , w hi ch cont en d s that 9 T o m a ss o f

a iled to c a ll B o e in g ’s p ro f f e re d ra tio n a les in to d o u b t. C l ai m i ng m er el yt o anal y ze Tom as s o’ s l ay off w i t hi n the cont extof th e R IF , th e d is s e n t s u b v e rt s , su b sile n tio , t he cl earm andat e of McD on nell

D ou glas and Fuent es
. A s d is c u s s e d a b o v e , see supra p. 11, w e agr ee w i t h the di s s entt h at th e R I F pr ovi des cont ext 16 T om as s o’ s decr eas ed i nvol vementi n hi s ar ea of expert i s e as an i ndepende ntr eas on forhi s l ow s cor e. A r at i onal fa ct fi nder
cou l d co nclude t hat this reas on did not s uff i ci entl yexp l ain T om as s o’ s l ay off. 8 I I I
. C oncl usi on T o m asso h as c as t s u ff

ici en t do u b t on B o eing ’s prim ary ex p lana ti o n s fo r h is lay o f f u n d er Fuent es
. F u rt h e rm o re , a 9i mpor t a ntt o the l a y of f. I nd e e d, ou ra na l y s i s i nc orpo r a t e s the RI F. In m o st ca se s, w e in q u ire w h e th e r th e p ro f f e re d ra tio n a les e x p lain
w hyt he empl oy er vi ew s t he empl oy ee a s defi ci ent , and henc e s ubj ectt o t erm i nat i on i n or di naryt i m es
. H er e, how ever , w e as ked
w hether B oei ng’ s as s er t ed r at i onal es adequa t el yacc ountfort he vi ew t hatT om as s o w as, i n t he w or ds of the di s s ent“the w or s tof th e b e s t, i

. e. , an adequa t e oreven hi gh- per form i ng empl oy ee w ho i s under

- per form i ng r el at i ve t o hi s peer s
. ” D i s
. O p. at1- 2. T h e re f o re , o u r d isa g re e m e n t w ith th e d iss e n t h a s n o th in g to do w i t h an abs t r actdebat e about t he rol e of cont ext and eve r yt hi ng t o do w i t h t he fa ct s o f thi s cas e. T he di s s entfi r s tdi s cus s es T om as s o’ s fai l ur e t o att en d m eet i ngs , y eti tfai l s t o acknow l edge t hatt hi s r at i onal e ca n expl ai n onl yone of ni ne s cor es
. D i s
. O p at 3. Sur el y , B oei ng i s not ent i t l ed t o s um m ary j udgm ent under McD on nell

D ou glas and Fuent es o n th e b a sis o f a n o b v io u sly in s u f f ic ie n t ju s tif

ic a tio n f o r T o m a s s o ’s la y o f

f

. Second, t he di s s ents t at es , “W ood’ s fai l ur e t o s t at e that T om asso’ s per form ance w as defi ci enti s i ns uffi ci entt o defe at s um m aryj udgm ent

. ” D i s. O p
. at 3. T hi s cont ent i on i s t rue, but irre lev a n t. W e d o n o t b a s e o u r d e c isio n o n W o o d ’s f a ilu re to char act er i ze Tom as s o’ s per form ance as defi ci ent. U nder McD onnel lD ougl as , itis T o m asso ’s refu tat io n o f B o eing ’s p ro f f e re d ra tio n a les th a t d e f

e a ts s u m m a ryju d g m e n t. T h ird , the d iss e n t as se rts th a t “ T o m a ss o d o e s n o t p o in t to an yev iden ce that c o n tr ad ict s W o o d ’s pe rce p ti o n that T o m asso ’s at t i tu d e a n d t e a mw o r k l a g g e d b e h i n d h i s p e e r s
. ” Di s
. Op. a t3

- 4. T hi s s t at ementi s s i m pl yi ncorr ect

. A s di s cus s ed above , W ood cl ai m ed thatT om as s o s t at ed thathe w as uni nt er es t ed i n w o rki ng w ith o th e rs , b u t T o m a s s o d e n ie s th a t h e m a d e s u c h a s ta te m e n t. 17See s upr a p
. 1 3

. M o r e o v e r , W o o d s t a t e d t h a th i s “ dom i nant rea so n ” f o r giv ing T o m asso low sco res in a tt itu d e an d team w o rk
wa s h i s p e r c e p t i o n t h a tT o ma s s o wa s u n i n t e r e s t e d i n P VAs

. As we di s cus s ed atl ength, T om as s o ci t ed ext ens i ve evi dence t o r efut e the
c la im th a t h e w a s u n in te re s te d in P V A s
. See s upr a pp. 11- 13. B a se d o n a c lo se a n a ly sis o f th e f a c ts i n th is c a se , w e f

a il t o se e h o w w e c o u ld a f

f irm th e g ra n t o f

su m m a ryju d g m e n t w h ile
r emai ni ng fa it hful t o McD on nell D ou glas and Fuent es
. W e a re s kept i cal t hatundert he di s s ent ’ s vi ew , an empl oy ee l ai d off dur i ng a genui ne R I F coul d ever s ur vi ve s um m aryj udgm enton a McD onnel lD ougl as claim

. A s w e m en ti o n ed ea rl ier, ev en in a R IF
m ot i vat ed byeconomi c nec es s i ty , i ndi vi du al e m pl oy ees m aybe t erm i nat ed on the bas i s of age, and w e use the McD onel lD ougl as f ra m e w o rk to la ys u c h d is c ri m in a tio n b a re
. See s upr a p . 9

. 18 r at i onal fac t fi ndercoul d concl ude t hat t he re m ai ni ng r eas ons do notadequa t el yexpl ai n t he deci s i on t o t erm i nat e hi m
. T her efor e, T o m a ss o h a s c re a ted a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial f a c t as to w h ethe r B o eing lai d h im o ff d u e t o h is ag e. W e w il l th ere fo re rev erse the ord er of the D istri ct C o u rt g ran ti n g s u m m ary j udgm enton T om as s o’ s A D E A and P H R A cl ai m s , and r emand f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s
. A s n o te d a b o v e , s ee s upr a n o t e 2 , we wi l l a f f i r m th e g r a n to f s u mma r y j u d g me n t o n t h e ERI S A c l a i m.I concurw i t h footnot e tw o of the maj or i t y ’ s o p i ni on, 10
w hi ch af fi r m s t he gra ntof s um m aryj udgm entagai ns tT om as s o on t h e ERI S A c l a i m. 19 T om as s o v. B oei ng C o. N o. 04- 4657

RO TH , C ir c u it J u d g e , c o n c u r r in g in p a r t a n d d iss e n tin g in part :
A l t h o u g h th e ma

j o r i tyc o rr e c t l yr e cogni zes thata dec i s i on t o t erm i nat e an e m pl oy ee a s part of a R I F di ffe r s fr om a dec i s i on to f ire a n e m p lo y e e f

o r o th e r re a so n s, it fa ils to a p p lyth is d istin c tio n in a n ym e a n in g f u l w a yto th e p re tex tu a l an a ly sis out l i ned i n Fuent es
. 3 2 F .3 d a t 75 9

. In sh o rt , the R IF cont extual i zes B oei ng’ s pr offe r ed r at ion al es fort erm i nat i ng T om asso so as t o m ake them plausi ble and con si st ent. F or these
re a so n s, I re sp e c tf

u llyc o n c u r in p a rt a n d d iss e n t in p a rt. 10

I t i s axi om at i c t hat di s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s r es ul t i ng fr om a R I F di ffe rfr om a deci s i on t o fi r e an e m pl oy ee f oranother
re a s o n
. See , e. g. , Show al t er , 190 F. 3d at234- 235 ( out l i ni ng the di s t i nct i on as appl i ed t o t he pri m a faci e r equi r ement s for b ri n g ing a c lai m u n d er McD onnel lD ougl as )

. T hi s di s t i nct i on, h o w e v e r, g o e s b e y o n d th e p rim a f a c ie r e q u ir e m e n ts to n ec essitat e a d iffe ren t h erm en eu ti c fo r e v alua ti n g an em p loy er’s conductdur i ng a R I F. Forexampl e, i n H ook v. E r ns t& Young ,20 w e not ed, w i t h r es pect t o a compl ai ntpur s uantt o T i t l e V I I , that “a pl ai nti ff

w hos e empl oym entpos i t i on i s el i m i nat ed i n a corporat e reor gan i zat i on or w ork f o rce reducti on carr i es a he a v i e r b u r d e n i n s u p p o r t i n g c h a r g e s o f d i s c r i mi n a t i o n t han does an empl oy ee di s char ged forot herr eas ons
. ” 28 F. 3d 366, 3 7 5 ( 3 d Ci r
. 1 9 9 4 ) ( c i t i ng W il s on v. F i r es t one Ti r e & R ubber C o. , 9 3 2 F

. 2 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 7 (6th C ir

. 1 9 9 1 )).
In a R IF, a com pan y i s o ft en fo rced t o term i nate the w orst o f th e b e s t, i

. e. , an ade quat e oreven hi gh- per form i ng empl oy ee w h o is u n d er-p erf

o rm ing relati v e to h is pe ers. A s su ch , m o re nuanced d is t i nct i ons m us tbe dr aw n betw een r et ai ned and t erm i nated em ploy ees. T hese pe rfect ly leg i t i m at e bu si ness dis t i ncti on s m anifest them sel ves m ost sal i entl yi n tw o respect s. Fi r s t , su bjecti ve cr i t er i a t ake on a gr eat ers i gni fi canc e as t he
em ploy er l oo ks t o d raw fi ner di st i ncti on s b e tw een em ploy ees. T hus , s ubj ect i ve ca t egor i es s uch as “att i tude” a nd “t eamw or k” need t o be vi ew ed n o t j us ti n l i ghtof the w arni ng agai ns ts uch
cr i t er i a art i cul at ed i n G oos by , 228 F. 3d at 313, but al s o i n l i ght of the fa ctt hatempl oy er s m us t di s t i ngui s h otherw i s e compet ent em ploy ees. Second, sinc e the mar gi n of di s t i nct i on betw een t e r mi na t e d a nd r e t a i ne d e mpl oy e e s of t e n s hr i nk s du r i ng a RI F, th e e m p lo ye r ’ s m a rg in o f a p p re c iatio n to m a k e a g o o d f a ith
m is t ake i n eval uat i ng t al entm us tbe r es pect ed. A s t hi s C ourt not ed i n Fuent es :
T o d iscred itthe e m p loy er' s p rof fe red re aso n , h o w ev er, t h e p l a i n t i f

f c a n n o ts i m p l y s h o w t h a tt h e e m p l o ye r 's d e c isio n w a s w ro n g o r m ista k e n , sin c e th e f a c tu a l d isp u te21 ati s s ue i s w hether di s cr i m i nat ory ani m us m ot i vat ed the empl oy er , notw hethert h e empl oy eri s w i s e, s hr ew d, p ru d e n t, or c o m p e ten t.
32 F. 3d at765. Fi nal l y , l es tone thi nk t hatR I F w i l l be come a m a sk b e h in d w h ich d isc rim in a tin g e m p lo y e rs m a yh id e th e ir ani m us , a courtm ayal w ay s ques t i on w hethera true R I F, for
e x a m p le o n e p e rp e tu a te d b ya b u s in e s s d e c lin e , o c c u rr e d

. See , e. g. , G aw ors kiv. ITT C om m er ci alF i n. C or p. , 17 F. 3d 1104, 1109 ( 8 t h C i r
. 1994) ( ques t i oni ng w hetherthe companyw as a c tu a lly c o n d u c tin g a R IF ).
A s t he maj or i t ynot es , T om as s o has prod u ced no evi dence that the R I F w as par tof a br oad pl an t o l ayoff ol der empl oy ees
. M aj

. O p. at 16 n. 8. C ons equent l y , w e s houl d al l ow t he R I F t o c o n t e x tu a l i z e Boe i ng’ s pr offe r ed r at i onal es
. A ppl y i ng t hi s l ens t o B oei ng’ s conduct , T om as s o has notadduce d evi dence s uffi ci entt o cr eat e a ge nui ne i s s ue of m at er i al fac tas t o w hetherB oei ng’ s pr offe r ed r eas ons ar e pr et extual

. For example, T o m as s o cl ai m s t hathe w as noti nform ed that
a t t e n d a n c e a tc r e w m e e t i n g s w a s m a n d a t o r y. I f Tom as s o had been f i r ed forcaus e as a r es ul tof hi s fai l ur e to att end s uch
m eet i ngs , t hen the opt i onal natur e of the meet i ngs w oul d be a
s i gni fi cantfac t ori n ques t i oni ng thei rr el evanc e and,
c on s e qu e nt l y , w he t he rt he ra t i on a l e w a s a pr e t e xt

. I n a RI F, how ever , T om as s o’ s r el uct ance “t o g o t he extr a mi l e” a nd att end op t i on a l me e t i n g s , o rt h e P VA p l a n n i n g me e t i n g , b e c o me p laus ible rea so n s fo r h is term ination

. In th is ve in, W o o d ’s f a ilu re to sta te th a t T o m a ss o ’ s p e rf o rm a n c e w a s d e f

icie n t isT h e lan g u a g e o f T o m a ss o ’s a f

f id a v it i s e sp e c ially 11 i ll u m inat i ng. T om as s o ques t i ons B oei ng’ s m ot i ves bypai nt i ng hi m s el f as a compet entempl oy ee:

a tno po i ntdi d M r
. W oo d i nd i c a t e tha tI w a s d e ficie n t in
m eet i ng anyof m yj ob r equi r ement s
. H e al s o di d not expr es s t o m e a dissat is f act i on w i t h the w ayI w as t r ans i t i oni ng t o the PV A m ethod, orpoint o utany def i ci enci es in m yp erf

o rm an ce w ith reg ard to P V A

. In fact , M r
. W ood i ndi cat ed i n bot h of m yper form ance m eet i ng t hat I w as m eet i ng al l m yexpec t ed l evel s of
ac co m p li sh m en t. (em p h asis ad d ed ).

I had neve rbeen rep ri m anded orcouns el ed fornot at t endi ng ( cr ew m eet i ngs ) , and myn o n- at t endanc e w as neve ran is s ue i n m y p e r f o r m a n c e r e v i e w s
. I h a v e a l w a ys att en d ed , o r ca ll ed in to b e p rese n t b yp h o n e a t, ev ery m eet i ng w hich I w as t old w as m a n d atory

. (e m p h a sis ad d ed ).
S u ch o b serv ati o n s m iss the po int; m an y co m p eten t em p loy ee s are l egi t i m at el y t erm i nat ed i n a R I F. A s s uch, T om as s o’ s compet ency is in s u f f ic ie n t to d e f

e a t s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t.

22 in su f f icie n t to d e f

e a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t. 11

M or eover , T om as s o does notpoi ntt o any evi dence that contr adi ct s W ood’ s per cept i on t hatT o m as s o’ s at t i tude and te a m w o rk la g g e d b e h i n d h is p e e rs
. See Furrv. Seagat e Tech.23 I nc. , 8 2 F .3 d 9 8 0 , 9 8 8 (1 0 th C i r
. 1996) ( not i ng t hat“[i ] ti s the
m a n a g e r' s p e rc e p tio n o f th e e m p lo y e e ' s p e rf

o rm a n c e th a t is
r el evant ”)

. Forexampl e, T om as s o fai l s t o pr offe ra compet i ng empl oy ee r evi ew , oranyform of r el at ive co m par at or , t hat d e m o n stra tes a p e rc e p tio n o f su p e rio r pe rf

o rm a n c e v is-à -v is h is p e e rs. S in c e T o m a ss o h a s f a iled to c a rryh is b u rd e n , I w o u ld af firm the o rde r of

the D is tr ic t C o u rtg ran ti n g su m m ary j ud gmen tt o Boe i ng on Tomas s o’ s A D EA , PH RA , a nd ER I SA cl ai m s.