Neely also al leged sever al stat e causes of acti on which were dismissed. 1 I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - CT - 0 1 1 2 4 - S CT CAS H D I S TRI BUTI NG COM

PANY, I NC.

v. J AM ES NEELY ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 05/ 27/ 2004 TRI AL J UDG E: HON
. J AM ES T. KI TCHE NS, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: LOW NDES COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LANT: KATHERI NE S
. KERBY ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE E: J
. DOU GLAS F ORD RO DNE Y A. RA Y NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER DI S P OS I T I ON: T HE J UDGMENT OF T HE CO UR T OF AP P E AL S I S AF F I RMED
. T HE J UDGMENT OF THE CI RCU I T COU RT OF LO W ND ES COUNTY I S AFF I RM ED ON DI REC T APPE AL AND AF F I RM ED I N PA RT, ADDI T URGR ANT E D, AND REVE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D I N P ART ON C RO S S
- AP P E AL 01/ 25/ 2007 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. Jam es A
. N ee ly su ed h is fo rm e r e m p lo y e r, C a sh D istrib u tin g C o m p a n y , In c. (“C ash ”), claim ing h e w as d ism iss e d b ec au se o f fed era ll y p roh ibit ed ag e d iscri m ination
. T h e jury 1
r eturned a ve r di cti n N eel y’ s f avor, an d C as h appea l ed, ur gi ng us t o ei thers etas i de theThis onerous burde n (whi chtoday we rejec t) was place d upon plainti ffs in em ployment 2 discriminatio n ac ti on s by the United Stat es Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circ uit in Wa lla ce v . Met ho dis t Hosp ita l S

yst em , 271 F.3d 212 (5th Cir. 2001), more fully discuss ed inf ra . 

### 2 ver di ctbecaus e N eel y f ai l ed t o r ebutevery nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on of f er ed attr i al f

orthe d ism iss a l. o r to a llo w a se t-o ff fo r th e a m o u n t o f re tirem e n t b e n e fits p a id to N e e ly

2
s ubs equentt o hi s t erm i nat i on. N eel y cr os s - appea l ed, cl ai m i ng he w as ent i t l ed t o addi t i onal dam ages. ¶2
. A sh arp ly d ivide d C o u rt o f A p p ea ls affirm ed the trial co u rt ’s d ec isi o n as to C ash ’s
a p p e a l an d a ffirm e d in p a rt a n d re v e rse d a n d re m a n d e d in p a rt a s to N e e ly ’s c ro ss -a p p e a l. Ca sh D istrib u tin gCo . v. N e e ly , N o. 2004- C A
- 01124- C O A , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 6, at *2 4 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. J an. 3, 2006)
. A l though w e f i nd the C our tof

A ppeal s r eac hed the
corr ectconcl us i on i n thi s cas e, w e gr ant ed cert i or ar i t o addr es s the appr opr i at e al l ocat i on of th e b u rd e n s o f p ro o f (b o th p ro d u c tio n a n d p e rsu a sio n ) to b e fo llo w e d in o u r tria l co u rts in
em ploym ent di scr i m i nati on cases.

B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶3. C as h, i s a r egi onal M i s s i s s i ppi beerw hol es al e di stri bu t orshi p f or A nheus er - B us ch pr oduct s , w i th of

f i ces i n S t arkvi l l e, C ol um bus , and T upel o. T he di s tr i but or s hi p i s a f ami l yow ned bus i nes s f

ounded i n C ol um bus by the l at e M arvi n a nd Em i l y C as h, w hos e gr ands on, D anny C as h ( “D anny”) , c urr ent l y s erves a s CE O a nd equi ty ow ner . C as h oper at es pur s uant to it s d istrib u to rsh ip ag re e m e n t w ith the b re w e ry , A n h e u se r-B u sc h (“th e B re w e ry ” ) in S t. L o u is, M iss o u ri. ¶4. I n 1973, M arvi n hi r ed N eel y, w ho began a tw enty- s even- year cl i m b up the l adderat C as h. I n 1996, N eel y – w ho had served f ort en year s as Sal es M anage r– w as cons i der ed f or

### 3

pr om ot i on t o G ener al M anage rof C as h’ s C ol um bus oper at i ons . M arvi n and hi s s on, M i ke C as h, w ho w as t he exec ut i ve vi ce- pr es i dent , vot ed i n fa vorof pr om ot i ng N eel y, and D anny,
w ho had j us tbeen na m ed vi ce pr es i dent , cas tthe s ol e di s s ent i ng vot e. ¶5. A ccor di ng t o D anny, w hen hi s gr andf atherhi r ed N eel y, ther e w as a ca s ual att i tude at C as h, and the rul es s etby the B r ew ery w er e of t en r el axed ori gnor ed. H ow ever , i n 1997, t he B re w e ry b e g a n a n e w a p p ro a c h to ra ise its w h o les a ler s u p to a m in im u m sta n d a rd s le v e l. T he new approa ch i nvol ved “a s s es s m ent s ” w hi ch i ncl uded a vi s i tt o the w hol es al erby a B rew ery rep rese n tat ive e ac h sp ri n g . A t th e c o n clus ion o f th e v isi t, the B rew ery
r epr es ent at i ve pr ovi ded a l i s tof def i ci enci es t o be add re s s ed. T he B r ew ery then f ol l ow ed up w i th anothervi s i ti n t he f al l t o det erm i ne w hetherthe i dent i f i ed pr obl ems had be en addr es s ed and a l l evi at ed. ¶6. I n A pr i l 1997, the B r ew ery’ s m arketm anage rvi s i t ed C as h’ s C ol um bus oper at i on f or
an as s es s m enta nd pr ovi ded a l i s tof i s s ues and pr obl ems t o be addr es s ed. I m m edi at el y af t er this vis i t , D ann y i ssued a thr ee-page, si ng l e-s paced m em orandu m to N eel y p oint i ng ou tt hese iss u e s a n d d e m a n d e d th a t N e e ly a d d re ss th e m b e fo re th e B re w e ry ’s fo llo w -u p v isit in th e fa ll. T h e to p ic s li ste d in c lu d e d c u sto m e r su rv e y , em p lo y e e su rv e y , co m m u n ity in v o lv e m e n t,
s t andar d oper at i ng pr oc e du r e s , e mpl oy e e tr a i ni ng j a c ke t , a s s e s s mentmanu a l m ai n books , and
s t eer i ng t eam. T he mem o al s o addr es s ed the nee d f ora mar ketpl an. ¶7. T he f

ol l ow i ng year, M arvi n di ed, and D anny beca m e C as h’ s C E O
. H e announc ed that , due t o the new r equi r ement s i m pos ed by the B r ew ery upon i t s di s tr i but or s , he i nt ended t o s tr i ct l y enf

or ce the pol i ci es and rul es . T hes e cha nges incl ud ed str i ctdocument at i onPart of the requi red documentation was a tr acking form for beer products used t o detect any 3 out-o f- date b eer

in t hem arket. 

### 4 r equi r ement s i n pr epar at i on forthe B r ew ery’ s per i odi c as s es s m ent s and eva l uat i ons of

3 C ash’s op erat i on s. ¶8. D anny bega n t o r equi r e N eel y t o s ubm i tdai l y cal l s heet s di s cl os i ng w her e he had been and w hathe had done ea ch day, and t o submi tre gul arw r i t t en eval uat i ons of the empl oyees
w ho w or ked f

orhi m i n the C ol um bus oper at i on. D anny al s o i ns t i tut ed a “ r i de- w i th” pol i cy, req u ir ing m an ag ers (su ch as N ee ly) t o ri d e in th e truc k an d v isi t cus tom ers w ith C ash ’s
s al es per s ons . A ttr i al , N eel y t es t i fi ed he under s t ood thatthe B r ew ery r equi r ed thes e and othert echn ologi cal chan ges. ¶9
. N e e l y f

r e qu e nt l y f

a i l e d t o t i mel y c ompl e t e h i s d ut i e s a s a s s i gned by D anny, of t en
r ef us i ng t o compl et e them atal l
. I n f act , N eel y f

r eel y a dm i t t ed attr i al thathe r ef us ed t o do t as ks f orD anny thathe of

t en happi l y di d f

orM arvi n. D anny’ s f

ather , M i ke, tes t i f

i ed that N eel y s i m pl y di d notw antt o t ake or der s fr om D anny. D es pi t e bei ng or der ed t o pr ovi de
m onthl y eval uat i ons on empl oyees , N eel y r ef us ed t o do s o. N eel y t es t i f i ed thathe mi ght have s ubm i t t ed thr ee e val uat i ons on one of t he em pl oyees f

r om J une 14, 1996, t o M ar ch 3, 2000. D anny aba ndoned hi s eff ort s t o obt ai n the r equi r ed mont hl y eval uat i ons , and he d i r e c t e d Ne e l y t o p r o v i d e q u a r t e r l y e v a l u a t i o n s . Th e s e Ne e l y a l s o r e f u s e d t o c o mp l e t e . He
a lso d e c lin e d to u se th e re q u ire d tra c k in g fo rm s to p re v e n t o u t-o f-d a te b e e r fro m b e in g so ld by C ash’s cust om ers . ¶10. D anny’ s eval uat i ons of N eel y i ncl uded both c r i t i ci s m and pr ai s e. Fori ns t ance , i n the J anuary eval uat i on, D anny t ol d N eel y he neede d t o w or k w i th t eam l eade r s on s ett i ng up on-Th e ADEA i s a f ed eral st atute. Th e em

plo ye e’s cas e in

theLo wn de s C ounty

Circuit C ourt 4 all eg ed the addition al st atecaus es o f a cti on of bre ach of em plo ym ent co ntract , e m oti on al distres s, and libel/ slander. The trial j udge granted summary judgme nt i n favor of the employer on all the 

### 5 pr emi s es pr om ot i ons . I n N eel y’ s February e val uat i on, D anny s t at ed, “ [ k] eep up the gr eatj ob of r educi ng expens es . ” D anny’ s A ugus t1998 eval uat i on of N eel y began w i th pr ai s e: “The
acc ount s I di d vi s i tl ooked r eal l y good. W e r eal l y domi nat ed the cool erdi s pl ays and other
as pect s of

the bus i nes s . T he trucks have l oo ked g ood r ol l i ng dow n the r oad and the
w ar ehous e has been c l ean e ach t i m e I vi s i t ed. ” H ow ever , l at eri n the mem o, D anny s t at ed, “[ i ] n or dert o pr ovi de more val ue vs . ‘ tw enty year s of s ervi ce’ the pos i t i ons need t o keep
a d d in g a b iliti e s , n o t s e n io ri ty . T h is is n o t a s o c ia l s e c u ri ty s y s te m .” ¶11
. In the “gam e pl an” for199 9 – w hil e N eel y w as th e g en era l m an ag er o f C ash ’s C ol um bus oper at i ons – D anny s t at ed, “I ’ m very pl eas ed w i th the over al l di r ect i on the i m pact h a s g iv e n th e C o lu m b u s o p e ra tio n .” T h e n , in a d o c u m e n t D a n n y p re p a re d c a lled “ Jim N e e ly T i m e Li ne, ” w hen r ef

erri ng t o an empl oyee na m ed Tony C ar l ey w ho w or ked f orC as h, D anny not ed, “[ h] e w as l at erpr om ot ed t o s upervi s orand ac tual l y di d mostof the w or k f

or th e o th e r t o o [s ic ] m u c h o ld e r s u p e rv is o rs th a t w e re ri d in g th e irtim e o u t.” ¶ 1 2
. In e a rl y 2 0 0 0 , N e e ly r o d e w ith o n e o f h is s a les m e n , M ick e y L e w is, to v isit h is
acc ount s . A f

t erthe vi s i t s , nei therL ew i s nor N eel y re por t ed f i ndi ng any out - of

- dat e pr oduct atthe cus t om erl ocat i ons . Soon t her eaf t er , on M ar ch 3, 2000, D anny ca l l ed N eel y i nt o a conf er ence and t erm i nat ed hi s empl oym entw i th C as h, r epl aci ng hi m w i th C ar l ey w ho, att hat t i m e, w as 38 year s ol d. ¶13. N eel y f

i l ed s ui tag ai nstC ash in t he C i rcui tC ou rto f L ow ndes C ounty, al l egi ng
v iolati o n o f the A g e D iscri m ination in E m p loy m en t A ct, 2 9 U
. S
. C
. § § 6 2 1 -34 (“A D E A ”), 4state l aw matters . However, the tri al judge re fused to gr ant summary judgment in favor of the

employer on the ADEA issue, leaving only the ADEA claim to be tried. Following the election of a new trial judge in Lowndes County, the em ployer filed a motion for reconsi deration of it s motion for summary judgment on the ADEA issue. The new presiding tr ial judge a lso refused to gr ant summaryju dg mentinth e e mpl oy er ’s fav oronth e A DEAcl ai m. 

### 6 a n d a t th e c o n c lu sio n o f th e tria l, th e ju ry re tu rn e d a v e rd ict fo r N e e ly a n d a w a rd e d h im $120, 000. 00 i n back pa y. T he j ury al s o f ound thatC as h’ s vi olat i on o f the A D E A w as not
w ill fu l. ¶14
. C as h f

i l ed var i ous pos ttr i al m ot i ons , i ncludi ng a m oti on forj ud gm ent notw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct . N eel y a l s o f i l ed pos ttr i al mot i ons , i ncl udi ng a mot i on f oran addi turor , i n t he al t ernat i ve, a new tr i al on damages , a s w el l as a mot i on f orpr ej udgm entand pos t - j udgm ent i nter est , at t orney fees, and cost s. T he tr i al cou rtden i ed all po sttri al m oti on s. ¶15. C as h t i m el y pe r f ect ed i t s appea l , cl ai m i ng i tw as ent i t l ed t o j udgm ent notw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctbeca us e N eel y f ai l ed t o r ebutal l of

the nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas ons C as h pr es ent ed attr i al f orhi s di s m i s s al , and that , i n any ca s e, the ver di cts houl d be off setb y $208, 896. 66 i n r et i r ementbenef

i t s pai d t o N eel y a f

t erhe w as t erm i nat ed. N eel y c r os s - appea l ed, cl ai m i ng
as err orthe tr i al court ’ s r ef us al t o gr ant hi m an addi turornew tr i al on damages , f r ontpay, prej ud gm ent and p ost -j ud gm ent i nter est , cost s, and at t orney fees. ¶16. I n a m aj or i ty opi ni on w r i t t en by J udge I r vi ng on behal f of a f i ve- j udge m aj or i ty, t he C o u rtof A p p ea ls affirm ed th e tr ial co u rton C ash ’s direc t app ea l and affirm ed in p art N ee ly’s
cr os s - appea l , condi t i oned on C as h’ s acc ept ance of an addi turi n the amo untof $58, 754; how everthe m aj or i ty r ever s ed and r emanded on the tr i al court ’ s f ai l ur e t o gr antpr ej udgm ent i nter est , po st -j ud gm ent i nter est , l oss of i nsurance b enefi t s, fr on tpay , an d att orneys’ f ees. Cas h D is tr ibuting , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 6, at*24.Ho we ve r, s tat e su pre m e co urt s are n ot d

uty -bound

to f oll owa f ed eral co urt

of appe als ’ 5 interpr etation of federal law. This fact will be discussed inf ra . 

### 7 ¶17. J udge G r i f

f i s , j oi ned by tw o j udges , di s s ent ed, poi nt i ng outthatthe r ecor d i ncl uded no di r ectev i dence of

age di s cr i m i nat i on, beca us e D anny’ s m emos cont ai ni ng age- r el at ed
c o m m e n ts , w h e n v ie w e d in c o n te x t, w e re u n re la te d to a n y d is c ri m in a to ry p u rp o s e . I d. at
* 2 5 ( Gr i f

f i s , J
. , d i s s e n t i n g )
. Ca s h p e t i t i o n e d th i s Co u r tf o ra wr i to f

c e r t i o r a r i , wh i c h we gr ant ed. DI S CU S S I ON I. ¶1 8
. In 1 9 6 7 , th e U n it ed S tat es C o n g ress p asse d the A D E A , w h ich “ p roh ibit [s] arb itrary
a g e d isc rim in a tio n in e m p lo y m e n t.” 2 9 U .S .C . § 6 2 1 (b ). S p e c ifica lly , the A D E A m a k e s it “u n law ful for a n em p loy er to . . . d isch arg e a n y i n d ividu al .
. . b ec au se o f suc h ind ividu al’s age. ” I d. § 6 2 3 (a)(1). ¶19. A pl ai nt i f

f w i s hi ng t o es t abl i s h an empl oyer ’ s l i abi l i ty forvi ol at i on of the A D E A m ay b ri n g th e c la im in s ta te o r f e d e ra l c o u rt . I

d. § 6 2 6 ( c ) ( 1 )
. W h e n a p l a i n t i f f b r i n g s a n AD EA cl ai m i n ours t at e court s , w e ar e bound t o appl y the l aw as i nt erpr et ed by t he U ni t ed St at es S u p re m e C o u rt . See, e. g. , Saunde rs v. Mul lins , 4 1 2 S o . 2 d 2 4 5 , 2 4 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). 5 ¶20. I n s ett i ng f

or th the s t andar d of r evi ew fort hi s cas e, w e bor r ow t he f ol l ow i ng f

r om the C ou rtof A pp eal s: W hen r evi ew i ng the deni al of a mot i on f

orj udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , w e cons i derthe evi dence i n a l i ghtmostf avor abl e t o the non- m ovi ng part y (i n t hi s cas e, N eel y)
. W e al s o gi ve the non- m ovi ng party the ‘ benef i tof a ll f a v o ra b le in fe re n c e [si c ] th a t m a y b e re a s o n a b ly d ra w n fr o m th e e v id e n c e .’ 3 M Co
. v . Johns on , 895 So. 2d 151, 160 ( ¶30) ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Mun f ord , I nc . v . F l em i ng , 5 9 7 S o . 2 d 1 2 8 2 , 1 2 8 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 2 )). W e w ill re v e rse o n lyAlthough M c D o n n ell D o u g las invo lv eda c la im o f r ac ialdiscrimination, i ts pronouncement 6 has been appli ed to other e mployment discr iminati onc as es, includi ng ADEA cases. See, e.g. , Reeve s v. S an derso n Pl

um bin g Prod s. , I nc . , 530 U.S. 133, 142, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (20 00 ). 

### 8 if th e e v id e n c e ‘p o in ts s o o v e rw h e lm in g ly in fa v o r o f th e m o v in g p a rty [in th is cas e, C as h] thatr eas onabl e j ur or s cou l d nothave f ound i n f avorof the nonm o v in g p a rt y . Id
. Cas h D is tr ibuting , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 6, at*3. II. ¶21. I n br i ngi ng an A D E A c l ai m , the pl ai nt i f f mustf ol l ow a pr eci s e s cheme, or al l ocat i on, of the bur dens of pr oof

(both pr oduct i on and per s uas i on)
. O uranal ys i s of thes e bur dens and their ap p li ca ti o n in this ca se m u st b e g in w ith a re v iew o f U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. ¶22. I n McD onnell

D ouglas Cor

p. v. G r een , 411 U
. S. 792, 800, 93 S. C t . 1817, 36 L
. E d. 2d 668 ( 1973) , the Supreme C our ts quar el y addr es s ed w hati tcal l ed the “c r i t i cal i s s ue” of “the or derand al l ocat i on of pr oof i n a pr i vat e, non- cl as s act i on chall eng i ng em pl oym ent di s cr i m i nat i on. ” T he McD on n ell D ou glas C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t “[t]h e c o m p lain a n t in a T itl e V I I tr i al m us tc arr y the i ni t i al bur den underthe s t atut e of e s t abl i s hi ng a pr i m a f

aci e ca s e of
r a c i a l d i s c r i mi n a t i o n . . . . Th e b u r d e n th e n mu s ts h i f tt o th e e mp l o y e rt o a r t i c u l a t e s o me [ 6] l egi t i m at e, nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on f orthe empl oyee’ s r ej ect i on. ” I d. at802- 03
. If

t hat bur den i s m et , the empl oyee mustthen “be af f or ded a f

ai roppo rtuni ty t o s how that[ the empl oyer ’ s ] s t at ed r eas on f or[ the empl oyee’ s ] r ej ect i on w as i n f actpr et ext . ” I

d. at804.

### 9

¶2 3. E i ghtyear s l at er , t he Supr eme C ou r tp r ov i de d a dd i t i on a l e xp l a na t i on i n T exas D e pa r t m e nt of Com m unit

y Af f airs v. Burdine , 450 U
. S. 248, 101 S. C t . 1089, 67 L
. E d. 2d 207 ( 1981)
. T he Burdine C our tbegan by r es t at i ng i t s hol di ng i n McD onnell D ouglas : Fi r s t , the pl ai nt i f

f has the bur den of

pr ovi ng by t he preponde r ance of the evi dence a pr i m a f

aci e cas e of

di s cr i m i nat i on. Second, i f the pl ai nt i f

f s ucce eds in p ro v in g th e p rim a fa c ie c a se , th e b u rd e n s h ifts to th e d e fe n d a n t ‘to a rticu late s o m e l e g itim a te , n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n fo r t h e e m p lo y e e ’s re je c tio n .’ [McD onnel lD ouglas , 4 1 1 U .S .] a t 8 0 2 . T h ird , sh o u ld th e d e fe n d a n t ca rry th is bur den , the p l a i nt i f

f mus tthe n ha ve a n op po r tun i ty t o pr ov e by a pr eponder ance of

the evi dence thatthe l egi t i m at e r eas ons of f er ed by the d e fe n d a n t w e re n o t its tru e re a s o n s , b u t w e re a p re te x t f o r d is c ri m in a tio n . I

d. at804. Burdine , 450 U
. S. at252- 53. T he Burdine C our tthen cl ar i f i ed McD onne l

l D ouglas by expl ai ni ng that [t] h e n a tu re o f th e b u rd e n th a t sh ifts to th e d e fe n d a n t sh o u ld b e u n d e rsto o d in l i ghtof the pl ai nt i f

f’ s ul t i m at e and i nt erm edi at e bur dens
. T he ul t i m at e bur den of pers uad i ng t he tr i erof f actthatthe def

endanti nt ent i onal l y di s cr i m i nat ed a ga i ns tthe p l a i nt i f

f r e mai ns a ta l l t i mes wi th the p l a i nt i f f
. T he McD o n n e ll D ou glas di vi s i on of

i nt erm edi at e evi dent i ary bur dens s erves t o br i ng the l i t i gant s and the courtexpedi t i ous l y and f ai r l y t o thi s ul t i m at e ques t i on. I d. at 25 3 (i n terna l ci tat ion s o m itted). ¶24. W her e a pl ai nt i f

f es t abl i s hes a pr i m a f

aci e ca s e, di s cr i m i nat i on i s pr es um ed unl es s the
e m p lo y e r p ro v id e s a n o n d isc rim in a to ry e x p lan a tio n fo r the ad v erse em p loy m e n t ac tio n . T h is is so b ec au se th e a cts estab li sh ing the p ri m a fac ie c ase , “ if o therw ise u n ex p lai n ed , a re m o re l i kel y than notbas ed on the cons i der at i on of i m perm i s s i bl e f

act or s . ” F urnco Con s tr. Co.
v. W aters , 4 3 8 U
. S
. 5 6 7 , 5 7 7 , 9 8 S
. C t. 2 9 4 3 , 5 7 L
. E d
. 2 d 9 5 7 (19 7 8 ). ¶25. T he B urdine C our tw entf ur ther t o st at e that“[i ] f t he t ri er of fac tbel i eves the plai nti ff’s evidence, and i f the em ployer i s si l ent i n the f ace of the p res um pti on , the co urt

### 10

mus te nt e rj ud gmen tf

orthe p l a i nt i f

f be c a us e no i s s ue of

f a c tr e mai ns i n the c a s e . ” 45 0 U. S. at254. H ow ever , w her e the empl oyerdoes “ca rr [ y] [ i t s ] bur den of pr odu ct i on, t he p re su m p tio n ra ise d b y th e p rim a fa c ie c a se is re b u tted , an d th e fa c tu a l in q u iry p ro c e e d s to
a new l evel of

s peci f i ci ty. ” I d. at255. ¶26. T he f

or egoi ng i s a fa i rst at ementof the U ni t ed St at es S upr eme C our t ’ s gui dance on the s u b ject as o f 19 8 1
. T h e q u esti o n w h ich rem aine d un an sw ere d , h o w ev er, w as w h ethe r a T itl e V II p lain tiff w h o p re se n ted a p rim a fa c ie c a se , b u t o ffe re d n o re b u ttal to nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas ons of f er ed by the empl oyer , c oul d none thel es s pr evai l
. W e f i nd the
c o n f u s i o n r e l a t e d t o th i s q u e s t i o n a r i s e s f r o m s o me c o u r t s ’ m i s r e a d i n g o f th e S u p r e me C our t ’ s hol di ngs i n McD onnell D ouglas and Burdine . T her e appe ar s t o be an i ncons i s t ent
u n d erstan d ing an d ap p li ca ti o n of th e co n ce p t o f r eb u tt ing th e e m p loy er’s n o n d iscri m inato ry expl anat i on f

ort erm i nat i ng the aggr i eved e m pl oyee. III . ¶27. W e do notr ead McD onnell D ouglas and Burdine t o r e q u i r e a T i t l e VI I ( o rADE A) pl ai nt i f f t o r ebutw i th s peci f

i c evi dence eac h and eve ry nondi s cr i m i nat ory re as on of f er ed by
an em pl oyerfort he t erm i nat i on. W e do re ad t hem t o say that“t he pl ai nt i f f m us tt hen have
an oppor tuni ty t o pr ove by a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe l egi t i m at e r eas ons of f er ed by the def

endantw er e noti t s true r eas ons , b ut w ere a pr et extf ordi s cr i m i nat i on”. B ur di ne, 450 U
. S. at253 ( ci t i ng McD onnell D ouglas , 4 1 1 U
. S
. at 80 4 ). R eq u ir ing co u rts t o p rovi de thi s opp ortun i ty is , w e t hink, qu i t e dif fer ent f rom sayi ng that the p l ai nti ff m ust p re se n t sp e c ific r e b u ttal e v id e n c e a s to e a c h n o n d isc rim in a to ry re a so n fo r th e d ism iss a l.We are unable t o find this requi rement in any federal statute or Unit ed States Sup re me 7 Co urt cas e. Ag ain , w e are una

ble t o find this req

uirem ent in

any f ed eral st atute o r Unit ed

St ate s 8 Su pre m e C ourt c ase . 

### 11 ¶28. T he conf

us i on, as demonstr at ed by the br i ef i ng pr ovi ded t o us i n t hi s cas e, ar i s es f r om W al lace v. Met

hodis t Hos pital Sys tem , 271 F. 3d 212 ( 5th C i r . 2001)
. I n W al lace , the U ni t ed St at es C our tof

A ppeal s f

ort he Fi f th C i r cui thel d t hat , once an em pl oyerpr ovi des evi dence of a nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on f orthe pl ai nt i f

f’ s t erm i nat i on, “‘ the pl ai nt i f f m us tpr oduce
s ubs t ant i al evi dence of

pr et ext . ’ ” I

d. at220 ( quot i ng Augus te rv. Verm il li on Par is h Sc h. B d. , 2 4 9 F
. 3 d 4 0 0 , 4 0 2 (5th C ir
. 20 0 1 )). W al lace nexts t at es that“[ t ] he pl ai nt i f f m us tput 7 fo rw a rd e v id e n c e re b u ttin g e a c h o f th e n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n s th e e m p lo y e r a rt ic u la te s .” I d. W al lace c ites tw o ad d iti o n a l F ifth C irc u it ca se s a n d o n e c a se fro m th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f orthe Seventh C i r cui tf orthe pr opos i t i on thata pl ai nt i f f “‘ m us tpr es entf

act s t o r ebuteac h
a n d ev ery l eg it im ate n o n -discrim inato ry rea so n ad v an ce d by [ h er em p loy er] i n ord er to
s ur vi ve s um m ary j udgm ent . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng Clay v. Hol y Cr os s Hos

pital , 25 3 F
. 3d 1000, 1 0 0 7 (7th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 )). 8 ¶29. W e not e that the Fi f th C i r cui t ’ s m i nor i ty pos i t i on that the empl oyee r ebut “ea ch and
every” nondi s cr i m i nat ory re as on prof f er ed by t he empl oyerhas been a dopt ed by thr ee otherOnly t hre e o ther C ourts of

Appe als apply

thi s f actor o r a variati on

thereo f: theTh ird 9 Circuit, Fu en tesv. Persk ie , 3 2 F .3 d 7 59 , 7 64 (3d Cir. 1 99 4) ( statin g “ theplaintif f’ s ev ide nc e reb uttingth ee m

p lo y er’ s p rof

fered leg iti m aterea so ns m

us t al low a f act find er reas on ab ly to in fe r th at each of the employer’s proffered non-dis criminatory r ea so ns wa s either apost hoc fabricat ion or otherwise di d not actually motivate t

heem plo yment ac tio n” ); the Seventh Circuit, Ol sen v. Ma rsh all & Ilsle y Corp. , 2 67 F. 3d

59 7, 60 1 (7 th C ir. 200 1) ( statin g “ a p lainti ff canno t w ith stand

summ ary judgm ent if

hefails tocre atea triab le i ssu e o f f act wi th resp ect

to e ach of his em plo ye r’s leg iti m ate reasons”) ; and the Eleve nth Circuit , Chapman v. AI Tran sp. , 2 29 F. 3d

10 12 , 1 02 4-2 5 (1 1th

Cir. 2000) (stat ing “[i]f the plaintiff doe s no t pr offer sufficientevidence to c reate a ge nuine issue of m ate rial f act re gardingwhe ther e ach

o f thed ef

en dant em

plo ye r’s arti culat ed

re aso ns is pre textual, theem plo ye r is entitled

to s um m ary judgm ent on

theplaintif

f’ s cl aim”). 

### 12 court s of appea l s . H ow ever , w e ar e unabl e t o f i nd any s t atut ory s uppor tf orthe pr opos i t i on, 9
n o r d o w e fin d ites p o u se d o r ap p ro v e d b y an y d e c isio n o f th e U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt. ¶ 3 0
. W h i l e th i s Co u r t o f t e n d e f e r s t o F i f t h Ci r c u i t d e c i s i o n s i n t e rp r e t i n g f e d e r a l l a w, we
a re u n d e r n o o b lig a tio n to d o s o . See, e. g. , State v. Montano , 77 P. 3d 1246, 1247 n. 1 ( A r i z. 2003) ( A r i zona Supr eme C our tf i ndi ng i tw as notbound by the N i nth C i r cui t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on
o f th e U n ited S tate s C o n stitu tio n ); P eople v. D unlap , 9 75 P. 2d 7 23 , 7 48 ( Col o. 1999) ( C ol or ado Supr eme C our texpl ai ni ng i tw as notbound by T enth C i r cui t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of fed era l con sti tuti o n al req u ir em en ts) ; S tratos v. D ep’t o f Pu b. W el fare , 439 N
. E
. 2d 778, 787
n. 8 ( M as s . 1982) ( Supr eme Judi ci al C our tof M as s achus ett s f

i ndi ng thatal t hough t he
c a lcu lat ion of an aw ard un d er § 1 9 8 8 w as g o v ern ed by fede ral law , i t w as n o t b o u n d to foll o w the m etho d a d o p ted b y the F ir st C ir cu it ); State v. Cody , 82 P. 3d 27, 30 ( M ont . 2003) ( M o n t a n a S u p r e me Co u r tr e f u s i n g t o f

o l l o w Ni n th Ci r c u i t ’ s i n t e rp r e t a t i o n o f f e d e r a l l a w,
s t at i ng t he Cour t s of

A pp e a l s “ do no tha ve a pp e l l a t e j ur i s di c t i on ov e rthe s t a t e c ou r t s and thei r deci si on s ar e no tcon cl usi ve o n st at e cou rt s, even on qu est i on s of f ederal l aw ”); L inc o ln E lec. S

ys. v. N eb . P u b . S e rv . Co m m ’n , 655 N
. W
. 2d 363, 371 ( N eb. 2003) ( N ebr as ka Supr eme C our tnot i ng thatw hi l e st at e co urt s ar e bound by the U ni t ed St at es

### 13

S up rem e C our t ’ s i nt erpr et at i on of f eder al l aw , they ar e notbound by ci r cui tcourt s’ in terp re tatio n s); Com m on w ealt h v. Cross , 7 2 6 A .2 d 3 3 3 , 3 3 8 n .4 (P a . 1 9 9 9 ) (P e n n sy lv a n ia Supr eme C our thol di ng thati tw as notbound by T hi r d C i r cui tdeci s i ons i nt erpr et i ng U ni t ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rtjuri sp rud en ce ); L undborg v. K eys tone Shi

pping Co. , 981 P. 2d 854, 8 6 2 -63 (W ash
. 1 9 9 9 ) (W ash ing ton S u p rem e C o u rtrefu sing to fo llow N inth C ir cu it ’s in terp re ta tio n o f fe d e ra l m a ritim e law iss u e ). W e w ill n o t h e sita te to tak e a d iffe re n t p a th
w her e w e conc l ude i ti s nece s s ary t o comportw i th control l i ng pr ece dentf r om the U ni t ed S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt. I V. ¶31. W e f

i nd t he pl ai nt i f

f’ s bur den of

r ebutt i ng the empl oyer ’ s nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas ons f ort erm i nat i on i s cl ear l y des cr i bed by the f ol l ow i ng s t at ementi n Burdine : A sa ti sfac tory ex p lana ti o n b y the d efe n d an t des tr o y s the lega ll y m an d atory i nf er ence of

di s cr i m i nat i on ar i s i ng f rom the pl ai nt i f

f’ s i ni t i al evi dence
. N onethel es s , thi s evi dence and i nf er ence s pr oper l y dr aw n ther ef r om m ay be co n side red b y the tri er o f fact on the issu e o f w h ethe r th e d efe n d an t’ s expl anat i on i s pret extual
. I ndeed, ther e may be s om e ca s es w her e the pl ai nt i f f’ s i ni t i al evi dence , combi ned w i th the ef f ect i ve cr os s - exami nat i on of the def endant , w i l l s uf

f i ce t o di s cr edi tthe def

endant ’ s expl anat i on. 4 5 0 U
. S
. at 25 6 n . 1 0
. W e a re a lso p ersu ad ed b y an o ther U n it ed S tat es S u p rem e C o u rt deci si on w hi ch f

ound t he Fi f

th C i r cui tappr oach t oo r es tr i ct i ve. I n R eev es v. Sanders on P lum bing P r oduct

s, I nc. , 530 U
. S. 133, 146, 120 S. Ct
. 2097, 147 L. E d. 2d 105 ( 2000) , t he S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d th a t th e F ifth C irc u it
co n clu d e d th at pe ti ti o n er ‘v ery w ell m ay b e c o rrect’ th at ‘a rea so n ab le j u ry coul d have f

ound t hat[ r es pondent ’ s ] expl anat i on f ori t s empl oym entdeci s i on w as pr et extual
. ’ N onethel es s , the courthe l d thatthi s s how i ng, s t andi ng al one, w as i ns uf

f i ci entt o s us t ai n the j ury’ s f i ndi ng of

l i abi l i ty: ‘ W e m ust , as an es s ent i al f

i nal s t ep, det erm i ne w hetherR eeve s pr es ent ed s uf f i ci entevi dence

### 14

thathi s age m ot i vat ed [ r es pondent ’ s ] empl oym entdeci s i on. ’ A nd i n m aki ng thi s det erm i nat i on, the [ Fi f th C i r cui t ] i gnor ed the evi dence s uppor t i ng p e tit io n e r’s p rim a fa c ie c a se a n d c h a llen g in g re sp o n d e n t’s e x p lan a tio n fo r its d e c i s i o n . . . . [ T] h e [ F i f

th Ci r c u i t ] p r o c e e d e d f

r o m th e a s s u mp t i o n th a ta p r i ma f aci e ca s e of

di s cr i m i nat i on, com bi ned w i th s uf f i ci entevi dence f

orthe tr i erof fa c t to d isb e liev e th e d e fe n d a n t’s le g iti m a te, n o n d isc rim in a to ry re a so n fo r its deci s i on, i s i ns uf

f i ci entas a mat t erof

l aw t o s us t ai n a j ury’s fi nd i ng of i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on. I n s o r eas oni ng, the [ Fi f th C i r cui t ] m i s conce i ved the evi dent i ary bur den borne by pl ai nti f f s w ho att empt t o pr ove i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on thr ough i ndi r ectevi dence
. (I nternal ci t at i on s om i t t ed). T he C ou rtw ent on t o specif i cal l y st res s

‘ [ t ] he f act f i nder ’ s di s bel i ef of t he r eas ons putf orw ar d by the def

endant ( part i cul ar l y i f

di s bel i ef

i s acc om pani ed by a sus pi ci on of m endac i ty) m ay, t ogetherw i th the el ement s of the pr i m a f

aci e cas e, s uf

f i ce t o s how i nt ent i onal d isc rim in a tio n . T h u s, re jec tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t’s p ro ffe re d re a so n s w ill p e rm it th e tr ie r o f f

a c t to in fe r th e u ltim a te fa c t o f i n te n tio n a l d is c ri m in a tio n .’ I d. at147 ( quot i ng St

. Mar y’s Honor Ctr. v. H

i cks , 509 U
. S. 502, 511, 113 S. C t . 2742, 125 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 0 7 (19 9 3 ) (em p h asis in o ri g inal)). ¶ 3 2
. C a sh a rg u e s th a t N e e ly fa iled to re b u t e v e ry n o n d isc rim in a to ry re a so n o ffe re d fo r h is t erm i nat i on. W e t ake C as h’ s ar gum entt o m ean thatN eel y had t o of f erpr oof thateac h of

t he
ev en ts C ash c lai m s led to h is dism issal did n o t actua ll y h ap p en . F o r i n stan ce , u n d er C ash ’s vi ew of the r ebutt al r equi r ement , once C as h a s s ert s i tt erm i nat ed N eel y be caus e he r ef us ed to fill ou t ce rta in fo rm s, N e e ly m u st c o m e fo rw a rd w ith so m e p ro o f th a t h e a c tu a lly d id fill outthe f or m s . I ti s thi s vi ew of

the r ebutt al r equi r ementthatw e f i nd undul y r es tr i ct i ve and
w i thoutf

oundat i on i n any em pl oym entdi s cr i m i nat i on deci s i on f r om the U ni t ed St at es S u p r e me Co u r t . I n d e e d , th e l a n g u a g e q u o t e d a b o v e f r o m R eeves tha t “[ t] h e fa ct fi n d er’s d isb e lief o f th e re a so n s p u t f o rw a rd b y th e d e fe n d a n t” d o e s n o t re q u ire th e fa c tfin d e r to d isb e liev e a p a rticu lar e v e n t o c c u rre d , b u t ra th e r re q u ire s th e fa c tfin d e r to fin d th a t – eve n

### 15

i f it d i d o ccur – i tw as notthe m ot i vat i ng r eas on fo r th e d ism iss a l. T h e ju ry in th is c a se c o u ld
very w el l have f

ound thatal l of

D an ny ’ s t e s t i mony abo utN eel y’ s i ns ubor di nat i on, w hi l e true,
w a s n o t th e re a l re a so n fo r N e e ly ’s d ism iss a l. ¶33. St at ed another w ay, w e f i nd the bi ndi ng Supr eme C our t pr ece dent r equi r es onl y that N e e ly re b u t C a sh ’s n o n d isc rim in a to ry rea so n s fo r th e d ism iss a l b y p e rsu a d in g th e ju ry th a t, true ornot , the r eas ons of f er ed by C as h w er e notthe mot i vat i ng re as ons f orhi s t erm i nat i on. T hu s, N eel y w as f

ree t o ad m i tthat s om e or al l of t he w rongful acts attri bu t ed t o him by C ash
w e re tru e b u t w e re n o t th e re a l re a so n fo r h is d ism iss a l. ¶34. I t i s not enough, of cour s e, f or N eel y s i m pl y t o m ake the cl ai m . H e m us tpr oduce
som e pr oof

w hi ch per s uades the j ury thatthe true r eas on f orhi s t erm i nat i on w as i m perm i ssi ble age dis cri m i nati on . A nd becau se N eel y d i d ex act l y thati n thi s case, that i s, he pr oduced e vi dence w hi ch per s uaded the j ury thatthe r eal m ot i vat i on f orhi s di s m i s s al w as i m perm i s s i bl e age di s cr i m i nat i on r atherthan the r eas ons pr of f er ed by C as h, w e mustl eave the jury v erdi ctun dis turbed u nles s w e fi nd that, view i ng the ev iden ce in the l i gh tm ost f avor abl e t o N eel y, n o reas onabl e, r at i onal j ur orcoul d have r eac hed the s ame concl us i on. Janss en P harm aceuti ca, I nc. v. B ailey , 8 7 8 S o . 2 d 3 1 , 5 4 (M iss. 2 0 0 4 ).

V. ¶ 3 5
. I n l i g h t o f th i s p r e c e d e n t , we d e c l i n e t o f o l l o w th e Fi f

th Ci r c u i t ’ s v i e w th a t a n AD EA pl ai nt i f f m us ts peci f

i cal l y r ebut eac h and eve ry nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on of f er ed by the
e m p lo y e r its a d v e rse e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n . In ste a d , w e s h a ll n o w fu lfill o u r d u ty to se t fo rth th e t e s tt o b e u s e d i n o u rs t a t e c o u r t s f o rd e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

ADE A c l a i ms . T h i s t e s ti s n o tn e w, buti s s i m pl y a r es t at ementof the t es tas pronounc ed and di s cus s ed i n the U ni t ed St at es“[T ]he pr imafac ie ca se ‘r ai se s an i nfe re nc e o f di sc ri min at io n o nl y b e c aus e w e p re sume 10 these act s, if otherwise une xp lai ned, are more likely than not based on the considerat ion of im pe rmiss ibl e f

actors .’” Burdine , 450 U.S. at 254 (quoting Fu rn co , 4 38 U. S. at 5 77 ). “If thetri er o f f

act be lie ve s theplainti ff

’s ev idenc e, and

if th e em plo ye r is sil ent in thefa ce 11 of the presumption, the court must enter judgment for the plainti ff because no issue of fact remains in t hecas e. ” Burdine , 450 U.S. at 254. W e read the Supr eme Courtp rec edent cit ed herein t o say that the evidence es tablishi ng 12 theprim a f

aci e ca se maybeviewe d a s ev idenc e th at therea so ns for the e m plo ym ent de cis ion

of fe red bytheem plo ye r w erepre textual. 

### 16 S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t cite d h e re in , an d a re jec tio n o f th e tes t se t fo rth b y the F ifth C irc u it i n W al lace . ¶36. Fi r s t , an A D E A pl ai nt i f f m us tes t abl i s h a pr i m a f aci e ca s e by show i ng (1) he or s he
w as a mem berof

the cl as s pr ot ect ed by the A D E A ( “i ndi vi dual s w ho ar e atl eas t40 year s of age, ” 29 U
. S. C
. § 631( a) ) , ( 2) he ors he w as otherw i s e qual i f i ed f orthe pos i t i on, ( 3) he ors he
su ffe re d a n a d v e rs e e m p lo y m e n t ac tio n , an d (4 ) h e o r sh e w a s re p lac e d b y a su b sta n tially y o u n g e r p e rs o n . R eev es , 5 3 0 U .S . a t 1 1 6 -1 7 ; see al so O ’Con n or v. Con sol . Coin Cater ers Cor p. , 5 1 7 U
. S
. 3 0 8 , 3 1 3 , 1 1 6 S
. C t. 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 4 L
. E d
. 2 d 4 3 3 (19 9 6 ). ¶37. O nce an A D E A p l ai nti ff est abli shes a pr i m a f

aci e ca s e ( as s um i ng the f act f i nder bel i eves the f

act s es t abl i s hi ng the pr i m a f aci e ca s e ar e true) , a p res um pti on ar i s es thatt he empl oy e re ng a ge d i n i mpermi s s i bl e di s c r i mi na t i on , a nd a bs e nts ome r e s po ns e by t he 10
em p loy er, j u d g m en t m u st be en tered for the p lai n ti ff. 11 ¶38. I f the e mpl oy e rr e s po nd s by pr of f e r i ng nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas ons f orthe empl oym ent deci s i on, the empl oyee mustbe af f or ded an oppor tuni ty t o s ubm i taddi t i onal evi dence t hat 12 the nondi s cr i m i nator y r eas ons of f er ed by the empl oyerw er e pr et extual , and thatt he
e m p lo y m e n t d e c isio n w a s m o tiv a te d b y im p e rm is s ib le d is c ri m in a tio n . McD onnell D ouglas ,

### 17

411 U
. S. at804- 05. I n r es pondi ng t o a par t i cul arnondi s cr i m i nat ory re as on prof f er ed by the empl oyer , the pl ai nt i f

f m ay cl ai m ei therthatthe eve ntneverhappene d atal l , orthatthe eve nt di d, i n f a c t , ha pp e n, bu tw a s no tthe true r e a s on f orthe a dv e r s e e mpl oy mentde c i s i on. Burdine , 4 5 0 U .S . a t 2 5 6 . In e ith e r c a s e , [ t ] he f act f i nder ’ s di s bel i ef

of the r eas ons putf

orw ar d by the def

endant ( part i cul ar l y i f

di s bel i ef

i s acc om pani ed by a s us pi ci on of m endaci ty) m ay, t ogetherw i th the el ement s of the pr i m a f

aci e ca s e, s uf

f i ce t o s how i nt ent i onal d isc rim in a tio n . T h u s, re jec tio n o f th e d e fe n d a n t’ s p ro ffe re d re a so n s w ill p e rm it the tr i erof

f actt o i nf erthe ul t i m at e f

actof i nt ent i onal di s cr i m i nat i on. S t. Ma ry’s , 5 0 9 U
. S
. at 51 1 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶39. T he pl ai nt i f

f m ay, of cour s e, of

f er addi t i onal evi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on, s uch as t he
e m p lo y er’s v erb al or w ri tt en co m m en ts i n d icati n g a d iscri m inato ry a n im u s. T h e p lai n ti ff
m ay al s o of

f eraddi t i onal evi dence of pr et ext , s uch as evi dence thatthe r eas on of f er ed by t he empl oyerf

orthe adve r s e empl oym entdeci s i on al s o appl i ed t o otherempl oyees w ho w er e not
su b jec ted to th e sa m e p u n ish m e n t. ¶40. T he j ury m us tcons i deral l of the evi dence s ubm i t t ed attr i al and det erm i ne w hether the mot i vat i ng f

act orf orthe empl oyer ’ s a ct i on w as i m perm i s s i bl e di s cr i m i nat i on. I n ot her
w or ds , e ven though s ever al f act or s may have contr i but ed t o the adve r s e empl oym entact i on, i f the j ury f

i nds thatt he empl oyee w oul d nothave be en t erm i nat ed ors ubj ect ed t o t he
a d v e rse e m p lo y m e n t d e c isio n a b se n t im p e rm iss ib le d isc rim in a tio n , the p lain tiff sh o u ld p re v a il. ¶41. T hi s C our tconf

r ont ed the i s s ue i n Co lu m b u s P a p e r & Ch e m ica l, In c . v. Ch a m b e rlin , 6 8 7 S o .2 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 5 (M iss . 1 9 9 6 ), in w h ich a fo rm e r e m p lo y e e b ro u g h t an A D E A c laim
a g a in st h is e m p lo y e r. T h is C o u rt h e ld th a t alth o u g h th e e m p lo y e e e sta b lish e d a p rim a fa c ie

### 18

cas e of di s cr i m i nat i on, he fai l ed t o r ebutal l of the empl oyer ’ s age- neutr al r eas ons f ort he te rm in a tio n . I

d. at1150. T hi s C our tal s o hel d t hateven i f the empl oyee ha d r ebutt ed al l of the empl oyer ’ s nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas ons , a r eas onabl e j ury coul d nothave c oncl uded that th e te rm in a tio n w a s d u e to im p e rm is s ib le d is c ri m in a tio n . I d. at 1 1 5 3
. T o th e e x ten t w e h e ld i n Colum bus P aper that the e m p loy ee w as re q u ir ed to reb u t eac h an d ev ery
n o n d is c ri m in a to ry re a s o n p ro ff e re d b y th e e m p lo y e r f

o r t h e te rm in a tio n , it is o v e rr u le d . W e
now pr ocee d t o appl y t hi s t es tt o t he ca s e bef or e us t oday. V I. ¶4 2. C as h does notcon t e s ttha tN e e l y e s t a bl i s he d a pr i ma f a c i e c a s e of di s c r i m i nat i on underthe A D E A
. I ns t ead, C as h cl ai m s i tdi s c ha r ge d Nee l y f orthe nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas ons of i ns ubor di nat i on and hi s f ai l ur e t o di s coverand r eportout - of
- dat e pr oducton a part i cul ar
occa s i on w hi l e r i di ng w i th a s al es m an. N eel y m i ghthave cl ai m ed t hatthi s eventnever happene d atal l , w hi ch w oul d ha ve s erved as e vi dence t o r ebutC as h’ s pr of f er ed r eas on f

or t erm i nat i on. H ad thi s ha ppened, the j ury w oul d ha ve been f r ee t o bel i eve w hi cheve rver s i on
o f th e fa c ts it fo u n d c re d ib le, a n d th e m a tter w o u ld h a v e p ro c e e d e d to v e rd ict. ¶4 3. I ns t ead, N eel y di d notdeny t hatmos to f the e ve nt s c l a i med by Cash occurr ed. H o w e v e r, N e e ly o ffe re d su b sta n tial e v id e n c e th a t th e se e v e n ts w e re n o t th e re a so n fo r h is t erm i nat i on. Fori ns t ance , N eel y off ered evi dence thatdes pi t e C as h’ s cl ai m s of i ns ubor di na t i on a nd po orpe r f ormanc e , hi s op e r a t i on i n Col umbus r e c e i ve d p e r f e c ts c or es fo llo w in g se v e ra l ev a lu a tio n s b y the B re w e ry . N e e ly a lso o ffe re d e v id e n c e th a t o u t-o f-d a te pr oductw as f

ai r l y com m on and thatthe extr emel y m et i cul ous audi tof hi s t err i t ory w as
u n p re c e d e n te d , a m o u n tin g to (a c c o rd in g to a n o th e r w itn e s s ) a “ w itc h h u n t.”

### 19

¶4 4
. A d d it ion all y , N ee ly o ffered ev iden ce sh o w ing that D an n y p o sses sed d iscri m inato ry ani m us t ow ar d hi m . T hi s and otherevi dence of di s cr i m i nat i on of

f er ed by N eel y i s fa i r l y s et fo rt h in J u d g e Ir v in g ’s m a jo ri ty o p in io n s u b m itte d o n b e h a lf o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls
. Cash D is tr ibuting , 2006 M i s s . A pp. L E X I S 6, at*6- 9. ¶45. T he j ury in t his case obvi ous l y cr edi t ed N eel y’ s acc ountof hi s di s m i s s al and the
e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g it o v e r e x p lan a tio n s s u p p lie d b y C a sh . T h is C o u rt h a s n o b a sis to d istu rb th a t d e c isio n o n a p p e a l. T h e ju ry w a s fr e e to fin d th a t ev e n if, as C a sh c laim e d , N e e ly had bee n i ns ubor di nate, thatj us t i f i cat i on w as pr et extual bas ed on evi dence of unequal tr ea tm en t, ag e-related st atem en ts m ad e b y C ash ’s C E O , an d th e im p ea ch m e n t o f C a sh ’s
w itn e ss e s . A s J u d g e Irv in g sta ted , “[t]he re sp o n sib ili ty o f d e ter m in in g w h a t ev id e n c e is
cr edi bl e and w hati s noti s the pr operpr ovi nce of the j ury. ” I

d . at*6 ( ci t i ng D o e v. S teg a ll , 75 7 S o. 2d 20 1, 20 5 (M i ss. 20 00 ))
. A m oti on f or j ud gm ent no tw i thst and i ng the v erdi ctm ust be deni ed w her e “ther e i s subs t ant i al evi dence i n supportof the ver di ct , t hati s , evi dence of
s uch qual i ty and w ei ghtthatr eas onabl e and fai r- m i nded j ur or s i n the exe r ci s e of i m par t i al j udgm entm i ghthave r eac hed di f f er entconcl us i ons . ” A lfa In s. Co rp . v. R y a ls , 918 S o. 2d 1260, 1261 ( M i s s . 2005)
. Such i s the ca s e her e. ¶46. I n R eev es , the U n ited S tate s S u p re m e C o u rt h e ld th a t th e F ifth C irc u it “ im p e rm iss ib ly
s ubs t i tut ed i t s j udgm entconce r ni ng t he w ei ghtof the evi dence fort he j ury’ s . ” 530 U
. S. at 1 5 3
. W e w il l no t m ak e tha t sam e m ist ak e h ere , an d w e the refo re find th a t th e jury ’s det erm i nat i on of

C as h’ s l i abi l i ty m us tbe af f i r m ed.

### 20 V II. ¶47. W e turn now t o the r emai ni ng i s s ues r ai s ed on appea l
. A f t er car ef ul r evi ew , w e f

i nd the C ou rtof A pp eal s corr ect l y d i sposed o f tho se i ssues. CO NC L US I ON ¶48. W e overrul e Colum bus Paper i ns of ar as i t r equi r es an A D E A pl ai nt i f f t o r ebuteac h and eve ry nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on f oran adve r s e em ploym entdeci s i on pr of f er ed by the empl oyer . W e af

f i r m t he ci r cui tcour t ’ s j udgm entas t o t he tw o i s s ues r ai s ed i n C as h’ s di r ect appea l
. A s t o N eel y’ s c r os s - appea l on the i s s ue of the ade quacy of

damages , w e af

f i r m the tri al cou rt ’s decis i on , provided that , w i thin thirty d ays of the is sue of the m and at e, C ash
ac ce p ts an d p ay s an ad d itu r i n the a m o u n t of $ 5 8 , 7 5 4
. If C ash do es n o t acc ep t th e a d d itu r,
w e o rd e r a n e w tri a l on d a m a g e s o n ly
. W e rev e rse the tri a l co u rt’s d e n ial o f N e e ly ’s c laim f orpr ej udgm entand pos t - j udgm enti nt er es t , l os s of i nsurance bene f

i t s , f r ontpay, and att orney’ s f

ees , and w e r emand f

orf ur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i th thi s opi ni on. ¶ 4 9
. T HE J UD GMEN T OF T HE COURT OF APP EA LS I S AFF I RM E D. T HE J UDG M ENT OF THE CI RCU I T COUR T OF LOW NDES COUN TY I S AFF I RM ED ON DI RE CT AP P EA L A ND AF F I RM ED I N P ART , ADDI TU R GRANT ED AND REVERSED AND REM AND ED I N PART ON CRO S S - APP EAL. COBB , P . J . , DI AZ , GRAVE S AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONC UR. CA RL S ON, J ., D I S S E N T S W I T H S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y S M I T H , C .J ., A N D W A L L E R , P .J . E AS L E Y, J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . CA RL S ON , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶50. B eca us e the m aj or i ty overrul es thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dent i n addr es s i ng the cr i t i cal i s s ue b e fo re u s in to d a y ’s c a se , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t.At the time of tria l, Ne el y wa s employed as the sales manager for the loc al Mill er brand 13 products beerdistri butorship. 

### 21 ¶5 1
. Jam es N ee ly, a C o lum b u s re sid e n t, h a d w o rke d for C ash ap p rox im ately 2 6 -ye ars b e g in n in g in late 1 9 7 3 a n d c o n c lu d in g o n M a rc h 3 , 2 0 0 0 , w ith a o n e -tim e six m o n th i nt er rup t i on i n e mpl oy ment . The l a s tp os i t i on Nee l y he l d w i th Cas h w a s Gene r a l Sal es M anage rof

the C ol um bus of

f i ce, w hen he w as 60 year s ol d. I n 1996, N eel y w as pr om ot ed 13 t o G ener al M anage ratC ol um bus
. N eel y a nd D anny C as h ha d a turbul entr el at i ons hi p f r om th e b e g in n in g . M a rv in C a sh a n d M ik e C a sh , M a rv in ’s s o n a n d D a n n y ’s f a th e r, v o ted to p rom o te N ee ly. D an n y ’s vo te w as the sole v o te ag ains t N ee ly’s pro m o ti o n . A ft er M arv in’s death i n 1998, D anny bec ame C E O and i ns t i tut ed maj orchange s i n acc or dance w i t h t he requi rem ents of A nh euser- B usch. T hese c han ges incl ud ed the co m pan y h aving an i ncrease i n f or m s a nd r equi r ed document at i on. D anny al s o r equi r ed dai l y c al l s heet s and regu l ar
w ritten e v a lu a tio n s. T h is in c lu d e d a n e w tra c k in g fo rm fo r b e e r p ro d u c ts w h ich w a s u se d to det ectany out - of

- dat e bee ri n the mar ket
. L i kew i s e, D anny i nst i tut ed a “ r i de- w i th” req u ir em en t th at m an ag ers ride in the tru ck w ith salesm en . N ee ly u n d erstoo d that A n h eu serB usch requ i red these ch ang es, i ncludi ng othert echn ologi cal chan ges. ¶52. N eel y of

t en r ef us ed t o do hi s dut i es as as s i gned by D anny. I n f act , N eel y t es t i f

i ed at tr i al thathe r ef

us ed t o do t as ks f

orD anny thathe of

t en happi l y di d f

orM arvi n C as h. M i ke C as h t es t i f

i ed thatN eel y di d notw antt o t ake or der s f r om D anny. N eel y r ef

us ed t o us e the tr acki ng f

or m s t o pr eventout - of

- dat e bee rf

r om be i ng di s tr i but ed. N eel y di d notf i l l outand turn i n hi s tr acki ng s heet s . N eel y r epea t edl y acknow l edged a ttr i al thathe outr i ghtr ef us ed D ann y’s di rect i ves.Anheuser-Busch has a zer o tol erance policy with i ts distr ibutors for out- of-date beer. One 14 of Anheus er- Bu sch ’s marketingtoo ls f or its b eer p rod uc ts is its freshne ss. Thus , Anh eu ser -B us ch deems it imperative that di stribut ors ensure that the del ivered beeris fresh. 

### 22 ¶53. D es pi t e hi s i ns ubor di nat i on, N eel y w as agai n prom oted t o t he pos i t i on of G ener al Sal es M anage rof

the C ol um bus of

f i ce i n 1999. N eel y w as i n char ge of everythi ng f

r om
ens ur i ng the del i very trucks and w ar ehous e w er e keptcl ean t o f os t er i ng good r el at i ons i n t he C ol um bus of

f i ce, budget i ng expens es , bui l di ng pr of i t abi l i ty, a nd m eet i ng A nheus er - B us ch
r equi r ement s . N eel y cont i nued hi s patt ern of i ns ubor di nat i on t o D anny. ¶ 5 4
. S h o rtly a fte r N e e ly w a s p ro m o te d to th e p o s itio n o f G e n e ra l S a les M a n a g e r in C ol um bus , D anny hi r ed D enni s K l i er , atthe i ns i s t ence of A nheus er - B us ch, t o be t he V i ceP res i den tof C ash. K l i er’ s r ole w as t o o versee b o th the C olum bu s and T up el o o perat i on s,
w h ich m ad e K li er N ee ly’s su p erv isor. K li er w as h ir ed six m o n th s b e fo re N ee ly’s t erm i nat i on, and K l i erl ef tC as h s hor t l y ther eaf

t er . E m pl oyees per cei ved K l i eras havi ng been hi r ed t o getr i d of

N eel y. K l i err equi r ed N eel y t o arr i ve atw or k at6: 30 a. m . i ns t ead of the us ual 8: 00 a. m . A ddi t i onal l y, K l i err equi r ed N eel y t o do r i de- w i ths on the del i very trucks i n or dert o vi s i ta ccount s , r atherthan f ol l ow behi nd the del i very truck i n hi s car , even though K l i er knew that N eel y’s doct or had w arned h i m againstdo i ng ri de-w i ths. ¶55. T he “f

i nal s tr aw ” came w hen a vas t amount of out - of
- dat e beer w as di s cover ed by

14 N eel y on a r out e thathe w as s upervi s i ng. N eel y ha d notdone the r equi r ed pape rw or k f ort he
rou te. T h ree o r fou r ca ses o f ou t- o f-da te b ee r w ere c o m m o n ly fo u n d o n ro u tes. H o w ev er, on thi s r out e, atl eas t160 cas es of out - of
- dat e bee rw er e f

ound. T hi s w as an unpr ece dent ed amount of out
- of

- dat e beeron a r out e. I n fa ct , em pl oyees t es t i f i ed attr i al thatthi s had neve r happene d bef

or e and ha d nothappene d s i nce then. T he s al es m an f orthe r out e, M i ckeyCoincidental ly, Perry Bosti ck is Neely’s son-in-l aw. 15 

### 23 L ew i s , w as f

i r ed. L ew i s ’ s i m m edi at e s upervi s or , Perry Bost i ck, w as demot ed. N eel y w as 15 f i r ed. T he M i s s i s s i ppi E m pl oym entSecur i ty C om m i s s i on ( M E SC ) deemed C as h’ s act i on t o be i ncons i s t entw i th i t s pol i ci es conce rni ng out - of
- dat e bee r , and thus , f i ndi ng no
m i s conductconnec t ed w i th hi s em ployment , the M E SC aw ar ded N eel y unempl oym ent ben efi t s. ¶56. D anny r epea t edly w rot e N eel y m em os ab ou th i s concerns w i th N eel y’ s poor j ob p e rfo rm a n c e . A lso , alth o u g h N e e ly m e t h is s a le s ta rg e ts, M ik e C a sh h a d c o u n se led N e e ly
a b o u t h is r e fu sa l to fo llo w D a n n y ’s d ire c tiv e s. O n e m e m o th a t D a n n y w ro te to N e e ly is
e n tit led “ A u g u st 9 8 A ss e ss m e n t.” T h is m e m o sta ted , in p e rtin e n t p a rt: J im , ************ I have gi ven severa l em p l oy ees a compens at i on s ur vey. I am goi ng t o us e the i nf or m at i on you gave me l astF ri day al ong w i th the N B W A compensa t i on s tudy t o m ake s om e det erm i nat i ons of ourcompet i t i venes s w i thi n the mar ket a n d th e in d u s tr y . I want t o de ve l op a be t t e r way t o ba s e bonus and i nc r e as e s v. j us t t i m e s pe nt i n any pos i t i on. I have be en thi nki ng aboutt he eva l uat i on pr oces s and have det erm i ned that w ith th e tim e in v e ste d in c o m m u n ica tio n s s o fa r, w e c a n g o to q u a rte rly r evi ew s f oral l empl oyees exce pts al es m en and new em pl oyees . T he s al es m en shou l d st i l l be ev al uated each m on th to cove r i m pact, rout e bo ok s, sal es, prom oti on s, et c. N ew em ployees s ho uld be eval uated each m on th for the fi rs t s i x m onths then quar t er l y. T hi s does notm ean thatcom m uni cat i on betw een m anage r s s houl d decr eas e, onl y the need f ora f or m al s i tdow n eval uat i on. T he q u a rte rly e v a lu a tio n s s h o u ld b e fa r m o re in -d e p th th a n a 1 -1 0 ratin g . I w o u ld l i ke t o s ee j ob s peci f

i c ques t i ons and an a r ea i ncl udi ng w hathave you l earned t o do over and above yourpr es entpos i t i on t o pr ovi de more val ue and w ho h a v e y o u tra in e d to c o m p le te w h a t ta s k s y o u a re re s p o n s ib le fo r. In o rd er to p ro v ide m o re v a lue v s. “ tw en ty y ea rs o f ser v ice” th e p o sit ion s n ee d to k e e p a d d i n g a b i l i t i e s n o t s e n i o r i t y . T h i s i s n o t a s o c i a l s e c u r i t y s y s t e m. W e nee d t o us e t he eval uat i ons t o s how eac h empl oyee the t ot al cos tt o the

### 24

c o m p a n y v s. th e ir tak e h o m e p a y . A lso , w h e n w o u ld b e th e b e st tim e to comp l et e the eval uat i ons ? The end of eac h quart erorthe l as tm onth of the q u arter t o d iscu ss cu rren t qu arter st an d ing s an d p lan th e n ex t qu arter. ************ I hav e not l ooked at t he c al l s he e t s t hi s m ont h, I hope yo u hav e t he m up to da te. I am a w are of yo u r co n ti n u ed m ark et i n vo l vem en t, a n d thi s i s a s m al l de t ai l t hat c an’ t be ov e r l oo ke d. ************ P l ease r eview this , si gn i t , m ake a c op y, and send itback t o m e. T han ks! (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶ 5 7
. N e e ly re lies o n th is m e m o to p ro v e a g e d is c ri m in a tio n . O th e r e v id e n c e th a t N e e ly p ro d u c e d a t trial in c lu d e d a d o c u m e n t (w ritten b y D a n n y ), en tit led “ Ju ly 2 0 0 0 , Jim N e e ly T im e L in e .” T h is d o c u m e n t h a d b e e n p re p a re d b y D a n n y a fte r N e e ly ’s te rm in a tio n a n d in ant i ci pat i on of

a hea r i ng bef

or e the M E SC on N eel y’s cl ai m forun em ploym ent com pen sat i on benef i t s . I quot e thi s documenti n i t s ent i r ety: J i m w as or i gi nal l y hi r ed by my gra ndf atherata t i m e w hen A nheus er- B us ch re q u ire d h im to h a v e a s u p e rv iso r o u t in th e m a rk e t. H is re sp o n sib ili ty w a s to vi s i tthe cus t om er s and check be hi nd the s al es m en. H e w as t o m ake c al l s on cus t om er s dur i ng the day a nd m ake tr ade c al l s atnight
. H e w as al s o the cont act per s on f

orthe br ew ery r epr es ent at i ves w hen they ca m e i nt o the m a rk e t. D ur i ng t he 1980' s A nheus er - B us ch s al es re al l y t ook off
. E ach ye arther e w as u su a lly d o u b le d ig it sa les in c re a se s n a tio n w id e . Jim is q u ick to s a y th a t h e is the bes tthi ng thateverhappene d t o C ash D i st . C o. beca us e of thes e s al es i ncr eas es . T upel o w as al s o havi ng thes e i ncr eas es and ac tual l y began t o out s el l C ol um bus w i th f

ew eracc ount s and t err i t ory. C ol um bus f ol l ow ed the n a tio n w id e tre n d s a n d th e re su lts a re d u e to a ll em p lo y e e s, n o t ju st J im . Jim nevers aw i tthatw ay. A s w e gr ew i n s i ze ( s al es and empl oyees ) w e nee ded more s upervi s or s and a s al es m anage rt o di r ectthe s upervi s or s . J i m w as pr om ot ed t o s al es m anager w hi l e s om e l ong t erm s al es m en beca m e s upervi s or s . I can r emem bers ever al p r o b l e m e mp l o y e e s o v e rt h e y e a r s a n d J i m a v o i d e d ma n a g i n g th e m. He al w ays putthe bi g deci s i ons of f on m y f athero r grandf

ather
. J i m w as qui ckDanny te sti fi ed that N eely of

ten ref erred to his “cripp led

fing ers ” an d th at h e w as s im ply 16 ca ll in g the m what N ee lyca ll edth em. 

### 25 t o t ake c r edi tf

orpos i t i ve thi ngs , butavoi ded r es pons i bi l i ty of m aki ng d ec isi o n s tha t i n v o lved p rob lem s. H e ro d e the fen ce to rem ain p o p u lar. T o n y Ca r l e y s t a r t e d wo r k i n g f o rC o o r s wh e n th e y f

i r s tc a me t o Co l u mb u s . He w as a s al es m an w i th them. H e kepttryi ng t o w or k f orus , buthe w as a f

r i end of m y brot herand gr anddaddy w as hes i t ant . H e w as f i nal l y gi ven a c hance a n d b e c a m e o n e o f i f n o t th e to p s a le s m a n . H e w a s later p ro m o ted to s upervi s or and act ual l y di d m os t of t he work f

or t he ot her t w o m uch ol der s u p e r v is o r s th a t w e r e r id in g th e ir t im e o u t. T o n y w o n n u m e ro u s c o n tes ts and w as pr ai s ed by the br ew ery. T ony w as promot ed t o sal es m anage ratthe s ame t i m e J i m w as pr om ot ed t o gener al m anage ri n ear l y 1996. T hi s w as the sa m e tim e I b e c a m e V ice -P re sid e n t an d E q u ity M a n a g e r. M a rv in w a s s til l p re s id e n t. T o n y p e r fo r m e d m o st a ll o f th e fu n c tio n s r e q u ire d o f h im se lf a n d J im . J i m w oul d pa s s the buck t o T ony w ho w as a hi ghl y m ot i vat ed and det erm i ned empl oyee. J i m w oul d t ake c r edi tthough w hen s om ethi ng w ent r i ghtand pass t he bu ck i f i tw as an unpopul ardeci s i on. I m oved Tony t o a pos i t i on of cha i n sal es m anage rforbot h C ol um bus and T upel o i n 1999. T he pu rpose w as t o g i ve h i m exp eri ence o ut of his com for tzon e of C olum bu s. A lso h e w a s s til l h ig h ly m o tiv a ted a n d I w a n ted h im to w o rk w ith th e T u p e lo empl oyees and rub of

f on them i f

pos s i bl e. T his m ade J i m the gene r al s al es m anage rf

orC ol um bus , a pos i t i on i dent i cal t o the curr entgener al s al es m anag er i n T up el o. T he gen eral sal es m anag er i n T up el o dev el op s contes t s, types hi s ow n eval uat i ons , l eads s al es m eet i ngs and man a ge rmee t i ngs , f i l l s out a ll r e q u ir e d d o c u m e n ta tio n a s re q u e s te d
. I had pre vi ous l y as ke d Ji m t o t ype so m e o f th e in fo r m a tio n h e h a n d w r o te , b u t h is c r ip p led fin g e r s[ ] w o u ld 16 n o t l e t h i m. A f

e w mo n t h s l a t e r h e h a d g o t t e n a n i n t e r n e t a c c o u n t a t h o me and j oi ned a c hat c l ub. M i racl es do happen. H e never t yped anythi ng at work an d ne ve r us e d a c om put e r t o g e ne r at e s al e s r e por t s hi m s e l f . The g e n e r a l s a l e s m a n a g e r i n Tu p e l o wh o i s a n o l d e r m a n d e s i g n s h i s o wn for m s a n d cr ea tes n u m er o u s it em s o n the co m p u ter . J im n ev er w a n ted to le a r n h o w to u s e th e o n e s w e h a d a t w o r k . I wa s a c tu a l l y c o mb i n i n g two pos i t i on s i nt o one l i ke Tupel o t o m ake J i m m or e hands on w i th the ac tual m a n a g in g o f th e e m p lo y e e s a n d c u sto m e rs lik e h e w a s b e in g c o m p e n sa ted to d o . T o n y w o u ld still w o rk w ith Jim in d e a lin g w ith c h a in a c c o u n ts in C olum bu s. T on y co nti nu ed to l ead the sal es m eet i ng s. Jim , as g en era l sal es m an ag er, w o u ld b e re q u ir ed to ev alua te th e su p erv isors in s te a d o f T o n y c o n tin u in g to d o s o . J im n e v e r c o m p le te d th e fi r s t o n e . Jim w oul d be r equi r ed t o devel op t eam l eade r( s upervi s or s ) f ocus es l i ke Tony had

### 26

b e e n d o in g . J i m n e v e r d i d t h i s a n d t h e y a c t u a l l y s t a r t e d d o i n g t h e i r o wn a n d T o n y b e g a n to h e lp th e m a g a in
. J i m w oul d be r equi r ed t o devel op s al es c o n te s ts , b u t he p a ssed the b u ck o n that al so . D enni s K l i er , the per s on I h ire d a s m y V ice -P re sid e n t to h e lp m e ru n b o th th e C o lu m b u s a n d T u p e lo o ff ic e s , h a d co u n seled J im o n sev er a l of th e se p o ints
. I w i l l getcopi es of thos e f oryou i n the m ai l
. T he w eek al l of the pr obl ems c ame t o l i ghtaboutthe o l d b e e r , De n n i s h a d p l a n s t o d i s c i p l i n e J i m o n s o me i s s u e s a n d g i v e h i m t i me o ff w ith o u t p a y . T h e ti m in g le d to J im ’s d is m is s a l in s te a d . T h e e v a lu a tio n s I c o m p lete d w ith Jim sta rtin g in 1 9 9 6 sh o w th a t I h a d to cons t ant l y r epea tm y r eques tf orhi m to fol l ow m y gui del i nes . I w entf r om V ice -P re sid e n t to P re sid e n t w h e n M a rv in p a ss e d in 1 9 9 8 . M y le a d e rsh ip sty le w as a l otdi f

f er entt han M arvi n and M i ke’ s had bee n. I bel i eve i n di r ect accou n tabili ty an d co m pen sat i on i s based o n cu rr ent per form ance v s. past per f or m ance . J i m i s qui ck t o poi ntoutthatw hen he w as pr om ot ed t o gener al m anage ri n 1996 ther e w er e tw o vo t es forh i m and one a gai ns t . T he tw o f or h im w ere M arv in an d M ike w h il e the o n e a g ains t him w as m e. H e is v ery corr ecti n t hi s s t at ement . I knew Ji m ’ s t r ack r ecor d and knew thathe had no r es pectf orme. I ha d s een hi m f

ai l t o make t ough de ci s i ons w hen nee ded and he w as notthe l eade rI w ant ed t o move C ol um bus f orw ar d. T he eva l uat i ons sh o w the co n sta n t strife b e tw e e n h im a n d I re g a rd in g h is p e rfo rm a n c e . I co u ld notbe as ef

f ect i ve as I neede d t o be due t o t he f actI w as havi ng t o but theads w i th hi m the ent i r e t i m e. O therempl oyees s aw thi s and i tm ade t hem f eel uncomfort abl e. T hey tr i ed nott o getcaughti n the mi ddl e. J i m w as r equi r ed t o r i de on the r out e truck p erf orm i ng w hati s cal l ed a r i dew i th. J i m hat ed havi ng t o do thi s a nd he made a mockery of i tby pol l i ng the s al es men i n the morni ng o f who was g oi ng t o be b a c k a tthe war e hous e t he so o n e st. H e m o stly ro d e w ith M ick e y L e w is o n th e o n -p re m ise ro u te th a t so ld the least am o u n t o f pro d u ct. T h is is the sa lesm an th at w as fire d d u e to ex ce ssive am o u n ts of o u t- o f-da te pro d u ct. M icke y ’s t ea m lead er w as P erry B os t i ck, J i m ’ s s on- i n- l aw . J i m f avor ed Perry and hi s e m pl oyees mostof the t i m e. T hey l oo ked ou tfo r ea ch o ther. T he team l eader, P erry, w as al so r equi r ed t o per f

or m r i de- w i ths w i th eac h of hi s s al es m en ea ch mont h. A nother m emberof

m anage m entcoul d compl et e the r equi r ementfort hem t o hel p out and gi ve anothers etof

eyes outi n the m arket
. J i m vol unt eer ed t o do thi s f or Perr y i n l at e February. J i m w entw i th M i ckey Lew i s and vi s i t e d m os t of t he account s t he ol d product was f ound i n a week or t w o l at er. Th i s s how ed a g ro ss n eg li g en ce o n J im ’s b eh a lf sinc e h is rea so n for d o ing a rid e-w it h w a s to tr a in , a s s is t, a n d c h e c k b e h in d t h e s a le s m a n . A l s o, w e had a b re w e ry g ra d in g sc h e d u led fo r F e b ru a ry 2 8 in C o lu m b u s. O ld b e e r w a s a m a in f act orevery t i m e a br ew ery r epr es ent at i ve ca m e t o t ow n, butes peci al l y dur i ng a g ra d in g . Ji m j ust ref use d t o do hi s j ob and had a tot al l ack of r es pect .

### 27

J i m a s s u me d Pe r r y ’ s r e s p o n s i b i l i ty wh e n h e p e r f o r me d th e r i d e - wi th f

o rh i m. A ls o , Ji m had n ot bee n com pl et i ng t he requi red eval uat i ons on t he t eam l e a d e r s ; t h e r e f

o r e , P e r r y h a d n o t b e e n g i v e n p r o p e r s u p e r v i s i o n i n my e y e s . Perr y w as de m ot ed t o s al es m an on the r out e pr evi ous l y run by M i ckey L ew i s . T hi s w as a s tr at egi c m ove on my par tt o pr eventthe cus t om err el at i ons w e h a d b u iltw ith b o th P e rry an d M ick e y fro m b e in g to tally lo st. T h is w o u ld have putus ata compet i t i ve di s advant age. T he demot i on w as a bi g f or m of di s ci pl i ne t o Perr y and has w as [ s i c] def i ni t el y chas t i s ed f

orhi s poor p e rf o rm a n c e w ith M ic k e y . Ji m w as t erm i nat ed due t o a com b i n at i on of thi n g s. T h e fai l u re to dis cov er the h u ge a m ou n t of old b eer w as the l ast s t raw , but t he cont i nual ref usalt o m ake and docum ent c al l s i n t he m arke t al ong wi t h hi s l ac k o f com pl e t i ng r e qui r e d t as ks s uc h as pe r f or m i ng eval uat i ons on t he te am l eaders an d gi vi ng t hem a m ont hl y foc us l ed t o an u n d e s ir a b le w o r k in g e n v ir o n m e n t. T he br ew ery has r equi r ement s of m e and I pass them do w n to m y m anag ers . T hey are req u ir ed t o fol l ow tho se r equi r ement s j us tas I am. T he onl y w ay w e can remai n num berone i s by t eamw or k. I f

el tas t hough Ji m w as al w ays pul l i ng i n the otherdi r ect i on and underm i ni ng w hatI w as tr yi ng t o acc om pl i s h. T hi s w as evi dentt o the ot her e m p lo y e e s a n d it m a d e th e m fe e l v e ry u n c o m fo rt a b le
. I hope thi s gi ves you an overvi ew a nd a nythi ng e l s e you ne ed j us tgi ve m e a cal l
. I s t i l l can’ tl ocat e the rul i ng of the unempl oym enthe ar i ng. I di d r ece i ve not i ce the appe al w as neg at ed. I w i l l have D enni s K l i erf orw ar d copi es of e v a l u a t i o n s h e c o mp l e t e d wi th J i m. T h a n k s , D ann y C ash (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶58. I n m y opi ni on, the di s pos i t i ve i s s ue i n t oday’s case i s w hether a pl ai nt i f f i n an age di s c r i mi na t i on c a s e i s r e qu i r e d t o r e bu te a c h no nd i s c r i mi na t ory r e a s on o f f e r ed by an emp l oy er f

or t erm i nat i on. Fi ndi ng thatthi s C our thas pr evi ous l y addr es s ed thi s i s s ue and
ans w er ed thi s ques t i on i n the af f i r m at i ve, I w oul d s i m pl y f ol l ow thi s C our t ’ s pr ece dentand
r ever s e t he j udgm ent s of bot h the tr i al courtand the C our tof A ppeal s , and r enderj udgm ent h ere in fav o r of C ash , inas m u ch as N ee ly fail ed t o rebu t ea ch of C ash ’s no n d iscri m inato ry
r eas ons f ort erm i nat i on.The Columbus Paper representat ives also t estified that Chamberlin “monopolized the front 17 de sk are a” and

“h e w as opp os ed

to u pgradingeq

uip m ent.” Columbus Pa

per , 687 So.2d at 1147. 

### 28 ¶59. W e w er e cal l ed upon t o addr es s thi s s peci f i c i s s ue i n Co lu m b u s P a p e r & Ch e m ica l, In c . v. Ch a m b e rlin , 687 So. 2d 1143 ( M i s s . 1996)
. I n Colum bus Paper , Jo h n C h a m b e rlin ent er ed i nt o a buyoutagr eementw i th hi s par tner s , Ji m m i e N ol en and C l ant on Johns on, on M a y 2 7 , 1 9 8 7
. I

d. at1146. A ccor di ng t o thei rcontr act , C hamber l i n w oul d r emai n an empl oyee a tC ol um bus Paper
. T he contr actcont ai ned the f ol l ow i ng cl aus e: C orpor at i on and Sel l erhereby agr ee thatSel l erw i l l cont i nue i n the empl oym entof

C orpor at i on, and thatthe C orporat i on m ay t erm i nat e the empl oym entr el at i ons hi p f orcaus e atany t i m e pr i ort o Janua ry 27, 1990, and at w il l th ere after. I d. C o in c id e n ta ll y , J a n u a ry 2 7 , 1 9 9 0 , w a s C h a m b e rl in ’s s ix ty -f if th b ir th d a y . I

d. at1147. A fte r m u c h strife b e tw e e n C h a m b e rlin , N o len a n d Jo h n so n , N o len , o n Ja n u a ry 2 2 , 1 9 9 0 , told C hamber l i n t o “f

i ni s h up atthe end of

J anuary acc or di ng t o ouragr eement . ” I d. a t 1 1 4 6
. C hamber l i n s ued pur s uantt o the A D E A a nd t es t i f i ed “thathe mustha ve been t erm i nat ed beca us e of

hi s age s i nce he w as t erm i nat ed on hi s s i xty-f i fth bi r thday. ” I

d. at1147. H o w e v e r, N o len a n d Jo h n so n tes tified th a t “p u rsu a n t to th e .. . c o n tr a c t, it w a s th e ir
u n d e rs ta n d in g th a t C h a m b e rl in w o u ld le a v e th e c o m p a n y o n J a n u a ry 2 7 , 1 9 9 0
. I d. ¶60. A s thei r nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on f or C hamber l i n’ s t erm i nat i on, N ol en and J ohns on present ed ev i den ce fr om C olum bu s paper em ployees w ho “t est i fi ed as t o v ari ou s ‘ problem s’ they had w i t h C hamber l i n” s i nce e nt er i ng i nt o the buyoutagr eement , w hi ch i ncl uded C hamber l i n “s noop[ i ng] i n t he fi l es” and r ef us i ng t o “us e the or derf or m s pr ovi ded by the
c o m p a n y .” I

d. H ow ever , “C ol um bus Paperadmi t t ed thatthe r eas ons st at ed above w er e not 17W a lla cewas a Title VII sex discri mination case involvi ng a claim of em ployment 18 ter minatio n b ase d o n p regnanc y. “T itl e V II pro hib its an e m plo ye r f rom failingor ref

us ingto h ire or dischar ge an individua l ‘because of such individual ’s r ace, c olor, religi on, sex, or nati onal origi n.’ 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)( 1). The ADEA proscr ibes similar treatment on the basis of age. 29 U.S.C. § 62 3 (a) (1)
. Thes am e ev identi ary p roc ed uref or allo catingburdens of

pro du cti on

an d p roo f a

pp lie s to di scriminatio n claim s und er b oth statut es. ” Brown v. Bunge Corp. , 2 07 F. 3d 77 6, 78 1 (5 Cir.

th 2000). See also Mei

necke v. H & R B lock , 66 F.3d 77, 83 (5 Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Because the th framew ork of the burden of proof f or Title VII and the ADEA are identical, I find Wa lla ceon po int
. 

### 29 th e re a so n s th e y fired C h a m b e rlin an d C h a m b e rlin ad m itt e d tha t n o n e o f h is p ro b lem s w ith C ol um bus P aperor w i th N ol en and Johns on w er e a r es ul tof hi s age. ” I d. T hi s C our thel d: C hamber l i n f

ai l ed t o r ebutal l of

C ol um bus Paper ’ s age- neutr al r eas ons . T he re c o rd in d ica tes th a t th e M a y 2 7 , 1 9 8 7 , c o n tra c t w a s e n ter e d in to k n o w in g ly b y b o th p a rties a n d C h a m b e rlin h a d c o u n se l lo o k o v e r th e p ro p o se d a g re e m e n t. It w a s a t C h a m b e rlin ’s b e h e st th a t th e J a n u a ry 2 7 , 1 9 9 0 , term in a tio n “ a t w ill ” dat e be pl ace d i n the contr act . N othi ng w i thi n the f ourcorner s of

the contr act i ndi cat es thatthi s dat e, J anuary 27, 1990, i s C hamber l i n’ s s i xty- f i f th bi r thday. L i kew i s e, nothi ng i n t he r ecor d i ndi cat es thatC ol um bus Papers oughtthe contr actual author i ty t o t erm i nat e C hamber l i n on hi s s i xty- f i f th bi r thday. The M ay 27, 1987, contr actcl ear l y al l ow s f orthe t erm i nat i on of

C hamber l i n “at w i l l ” af t erJ anuary 27, 1990, a nd Cham ber l i n doe s notdi s put e thatthe contr act al l ow s f orhi s t erm i nat i on af

t erthi s dat e. I d. a t 1 1 5 0
. ¶61. Subse quentto t his C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Colum bus Paper , th e U .S . C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f orthe Fi f th C i r cui tdeci ded W

al lace v. Met

hodis t Hos pital Sys tem , 27 1 F
. 3 d 2 1 2 (5 C ir
. th 2001)
. I n W

al lace , V er oni ca W al l ace w as a s t af f nur s e atM ethodi s t ’ s M edi cal I nt ens i ve 18 C a re U n it. W a lla c e b e c a m e p re g n a n t th re e tim e s in th re e y e a rs . I d. at215. ¶6 2. I ns t ead o f

the r e gu l a rf

orty- ho urw e e k, W a l l a c e be ga n wor ki ng thr e e t w el ve- hour
s h if ts p e r w e e k w h e n sh e d is c o v e re d th a t sh e w a s p re g n a n t w ith h e r s e c o n d c h ild
. I d. D onna H ah u s, the h ea d n u rse, an d T o ry S ch m it z, W all ac e’s su p erv isor, ga v e W all ac e a low er sc o re on hereval uat i on dur i ng hersec ond pre gnancy and s t at ed thats he gave an “i m pr es s i on t hatAc co rdingto t heMet ho dis t H os pit al S ys tem

du e p roc ess po lic y, a C las s I violatio n is 19 defined as “a ser ious violat ion of System standards und ercir cumstances that, after athorough considerat ion of the facts, may justify termination fora first viol ation withoutregard to the em plo ye e’s length

of ser vic e o r prior

rec ord of co nd uc t.” Wa lla ce , 271 F.2d at 218 n.9. 

### 30 s h e is u n c o n c e rn e d w ith e rr o rs a n d o m is s io n s ”
. I d. a t 21 6
. T h e e v alua ti o n n o ted W all ac e’s
r educe d s chedul e, and H ahus s t at ed dur i ng thei rm eet i ng di s cus s i ng the eva l uat i on t hat W al l ace neede d “t o c hoos e betw een nur s i ng and f ami l y. ” A ddi t i onal l y, Schm i t z i nf or m ed W al l ace thats he di d notknow how t o cl as s i f y W al l ace as an empl oyee be caus e of her
re d u c e d -h o u r s ta tu s . I

d. ¶63. O ne m onth bef

or e s he w as t o t ake her thi r d m at erni ty l eave , W al l ace w as t erm i nat ed f ora C l as s I w i l l f

ul vi ol at i on. I

d. at217- 18. I r ef

erher e t o the Fi f

th C i r cui t ’ s as s es s m ent 19 of W al l ace ’ s act i ons l eadi ng t o t he cha r ge of a C l as s I vi ol at i on. O n D ece m ber19, 1994, D r . B arr os a, a gas tr oent er ol ogi s t , i s s ued a w r i t t en or derf ortube f eedi ng t o begi n on M r . B , a pat i enti n the M IC U
. U nderthe or derof M r . B ’ s att endi ng phys i ci an, D r. K enneth L l oyd, M r . B al r eady ha d i n place a S al em S um p, a l ar ge bor e tube us ed f ors uct i oni ng f

l ui ds f r om the s t om ach butw hi ch coul d al s o be us ed f ortube f eedi ng. W al l ace knew thatthe Sal em S um p coul d be us ed f orf eedi ng. W i thoutan or dert o do s o, even thoug h one w as r equi r ed, W al l ace r epl ace d the Sal em S um p w i th a f eedi ng tube of a s m al l erdi amet er . She a l s o w r ot e i n the pat i ent ’ s r ecor d thats he had rec eive d a v erb al ord er from D r. N icola H an an ia t o p u t i n the s m all er b o re tu b e . D r. L lo y d d is c o v e re d th a t th e S a lem S u m p h a d b e e n re p lac e d . H e d id no tw ant the S al em S um p rem ov ed b ecause o f M r. B ’s m edical problem s. A f t erchec ki ng the cha r tand s eei ng t he or derw i th D r . H anani a’ s name af f i xed, D r. L loy d ask ed D r. H an an ia w h y h e h ad o rde re d th e tub e c h an g e. D r. H anani a i nf

or m ed D r . L l oyd thathe had gi ven no s uch or der
. D r . Ll oyd then s poke w i th W al l ace . A ttr i al , W al l ace a dm i t t ed thats he coul d have butdi d not co n tact a p h y sici an ab o u t D r. B arro sa’s o rde r. I d. at216- 17. ¶64. Soon af

t erW al l ace w as t erm i nated, an otherM et ho dis tnur s e overhear d a cl i ni cal di et i ci an i nqui r i ng of

Schmi t z a s t o why W a l l ace had bee n t erm i nat ed and Schmi t z r es pondedMiss. R. Civ. P. 50 disti nguishes between amotion for a directed verdi ct and a motion for 20 a judgment notwithstanding the verdict ; however , Fe d. R. Civ. P. 50 eliminates the dis tincti on between the two motions and instead refers to any such motion for judicial int ervention by way of taking a case away from the jury, or se tting asi de a jury ver dict, as si mply a motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Texas Dep’t of Cmty

. Affairs v. Burdine , 450 U.S. 248, 252- 56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1093-95, 21 67 L. Ed .2 d 2 07 , 2 15 -17 (19 81 ); McD on nell D ou glas C or p. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S. Ct . 1 81 7, 18 24 , 3 6 L .E d. 2d 66 8, 67 7-7 8 (1 97 3).



### 31 “ F irst o f a ll, sh e ’s b e e n p re g n a n t t h re e tim e s in th e las t th re e y e a rs.” W a llac e filed su it p u rsu a n t to T itl e V II fo r se x d isc rim in a tio n b a se d u p o n p re g n a n c y . T h e ca se w e n t t o trial, and af t erthe j ury w as unabl e t o r eac h a ver di ct , the j udge dec l ar ed a mi s tr i al
. D ur i ng t he
s econd tr i al , the di s tr i ctj udge tw i ce r ef us ed t o gr anta j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw ( “J M O L ”) i n f avorof M ethodi s tpur s uantt o Fed. R
. C i v. P. 50, and t he j ury returned a ve r di ctf or 20 W a l l a c e by a w a r di ng he r$7 0, 00 0 i n c ompe ns a t ory d a mage s a nd $4 37 , 50 0 i n puni t i ve d am ag e s. M etho d istag ain m o v ed for a JM O L , an d the d istri ct j u d g e g ran ted M etho d ist ’s
m o tio n a n d d is m is s e d th e c a s e w ith p re ju d ic e . I d. a t 2 1 8
. ¶65. I n W

al lace , th e F i f

th Ci r c u i tl a i d o u tth e f

r a me wo r k f

o ra Ti t l e VI I c l a i m: JM O L is ap p rop ri ate w h en “a p arty h as b ee n full y h ea rd o n an issue an d there i s no l egal l y s uf

f i ci entevi dent i ary bas i s fora r eas onabl e j ury t o f i nd f orthat p a rt y o n th a t is s u e .” ************ A pl ai nt i f

f can pr ove i nt ent i on al di s cr i m i nat i on thr ough ei therdi r ector ci r cumst ant i al evi dence
. W her e the pl ai nt i f f of f er s ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , the McD onne l

l D oug las -Burdine [ ] fram e w o rk re q u ire s th e p la in tiff to 21 est abli sh a p ri m a faci e case of di scr i m i nati on , w hich, i f es t abli shed, r ai ses a p re su m p tio n o f d isc rim in a tio n . T h e e m p lo y e r m u st th e n p ro d u c e a leg iti m a te nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on f orthe adve r s e empl oym entd eci s i on. O nce the empl oyerpr oduces a l egi t i m at e nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on, the pr es um pt i on of di s cr i m i nat i on di s s i pat es . T he pl ai nt i f f be ar s the ul t i m at e bu rden of per s uadi ng the tr i erof f actby a pr eponder ance of the evi dence thatthe empl oyeri nt ent i onal l y di s cr i m i nat ed aga i ns therbeca us e of herpr ot ect ed st atus.Th e f irs t no ndisc riminator

y re aso n o ff

ere d b y M eth odist

fo r terminatin g W all acewa s th at 22 W all aceha d p erf

ormed a p roc ed ure[ins ertion

of a na so ga stric tub e into a

patie nt] wi tho ut a

do cto r’s order; however , W allace putforth evidence thatan on -p re gnant nurse had pe rformed almost the identi calpro ced

ureon a p ati ent w ith out a doc tor ’s o rder , and theno n-p regnant n

urs e w as o nly verbally reprimanded by Schmitz and Hahus. Wa lla ce , 27 1 F .3 d at 22 1. Ho we ve r, u nlikeW all ace , the non-pregnant nurse did notgo further and falsif y the medical records by indicati ng on the patie nt’ s ch art

that th e pro ced

urehad been verb ally ordere d bya phy sic ian whe n, in f

act , it ha d n ot. Id. at 221 n.13. 

### 32 “To carr y thatbur den, the pl ai nt i f f m us tpr es entsub st ant i al evi dence of pret ext . ” The p lainti

f f m us t put f or war d e v ide nc e r e butting e ac h of the n on dis crim in atory r eason s t h e em ployer arti cu lates . A pl ai nt i f f m ay e sta b lish p re tex t “b y sh o w in g th a t a d isc rim in a to ry m o tiv e m o re lik e ly m o tiv a ted ” h e r e m p lo y e r’s d e c isio n , su c h a s th ro u g h e v id e n c e o f d isp a ra te tr e a tm e n t, “ o r t h a t [h e r e m p lo y e r’ s ] e x p la n a tio n is u n w o rt h y o f c re d e n c e .” I n cons i der i ng a mot i on f orJ M O L , “a pl ai nt i f

f’ s pr i m a f

aci e ca s e, combi ned w ith su ffic ien t ev id e n c e to fin d th a t th e e m p lo y e r’s a ss e rte d ju stif ic a tio n is fa lse , m a y p e rm it th e trier o f fa c t to c o n c lu d e th a t th e e m p lo y e r u n law fu lly d isc rim in a ted .” N o n e th e les s, “ w h e th e r ju d g m e n t as a m a tter o f la w is app ropri at e i n any part i cularcase w i l l depen d on a nu m ber of f act ors. T ho se i ncl ude the s tr ength of

the pl ai nt i f

f’ s pr i m a f

aci e ca s e, the pr obat i ve val ue of the pr oof thatthe empl oyer ’ s e xpl anat i on i s f al s e, and any otherevi dence that s uppor t s the empl oyer ’ s c as e and thatpr oper l y m ay be c ons i der ed on a mot i on fo r a ju d g m e n t a s a m a tte r o f l a w .” I d. at218- 20 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added)
. T he W al lace courthe l d thatW al l ace had notr ebutt ed the s econd nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on f orhert erm i nat i on – fal si fi cat i on of
r e c o rd s . I

d. a t2 22
. O f

s i gn i f i c a nti mpor ti s the f

a c ttha tthe c ou r tf

ou nd tha tW al l ace had p rese n ted e v iden ce to show dis parat e treatm ent by M etho d istas to the firstn o n d iscri m inato ry
r eas on gi ven by M ethodi s tforhert erm i nat i on, butW al l ace fa i l ed i n r ebutt i ng the s econd 22 nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on gi ven by M ethodi s tf orhe rt erm i nat i on. Fur ther , the W al lace co u rt hel d thatany of

f hand comm ent s by M ethodi s te m pl oyees w er e i rr el evanta nd di d notpr ove the s econd nondi scr i m i nat ory r eas on f orhert erm i nat i on t o be pr et extual , beca us e, among
o th e r t h in g s , W a lla c e a d m itte d th a t s h e h a d fa ls if ie d th e m e d ic a l r e c o rd s . I d. at226.

### 33

¶66. I w oul d ther ef

or e f i nd, i n a ccor dance w i th thi s C our t ’ s deci s i on i n Colum bus Paper and the Fi f

th C i r cui t ’ s deci s i on i n W al lace , thatN eel y w as r equi r ed t o r ebuteac h
no nd i scr i m i natory reas on off ered by C ash. A r easona ble and f ai r- m i nd ed j ury i n the ex erci se of s ound, hones tj udgm entcould ha ve unques t i onabl y bel i eved thatone of C as h’ s r eas ons f ort erm i nat i ng N eel y – the out
- of
- dat e bee ri s s ue – w as pr et extua l beca us e al l of t he inv o lved em p loy ee s w ere n o t discipli n ed in the sam e m an n er. H o w ev er, l ike th e p lai n ti ffs i n Colum bu s P ap er and W al lace , N eel y admi t t ed atl eas tone nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas on off ered f or hi s t erm i nati on – insubordinat i on . T he fol l o w ing is a p ort i on of the crossexami nat i on of

N eel y by C as h’ s att orney: Q . A n d th e se m e th o d s o r n e w th in g s y o u d e sc rib e d

– a m e th o d o f tra c k in g o u to f-d a te b e e r a n d d isp o sin g o f it, rid e -w ith s y o u ’v e d e sc rib e d , d a ily c a ll sh e e ts y o u d esc ri b ed , an d the e v alua ti o n s– tho se w ere the ch ang es y o u ’ve told the jury a b o u t to d a y th a t ca m e a lo n g w ith D a n n y , rig h t? A. Ye s , ma ’ a m. Q
. O kay. A nd as I under s t and yourt es t i m ony t oday her e t o thi s j ury, you have admi t t ed thatyou di dn’ tdo the dai l y cal l s heet s , pos t ed, turned i n a s w er e you d ire c ted to b y M r. D a n n y C a sh , co rre c t? A. Ye s , ma ’ a m. Q
. O k ay . A n d as I u n d erstan d it , y o u ’ve told the jury h ere tod ay y o u w ere su p p o se d to d o ev a lu a tio n s o f M r. T o n y C a rle y an d M r. B u d d y B u rk s, rig h t? A . C o rre c t. Q
. A nd you w er e t ol d by M r . D anny C ash to d o thos e w r i t t en f or m al e v a lu a tio n s o n a m o n th ly b a sis , co rre c t? A . C o rre c t. Q
. T hat ’ s up unt i l m i d 1998 w hen i tw as w ent( s i c) t o f or m al eval uat i ons once a q u a rte r, rig h t?

### 34

A
. I don’ tr eca l l the exa ctdat e, buti tw as eventual l y change d t o quart er l y. Q
. Sur e. B utyou have t ol d t hi s j ury her e t oday thatyou admi tyou di d notdo th e w ritten fo rm a l ev a lu a tio n s o n th e tw o e m p lo y e e s th a t y o u w e re d ire c ted to do by M r . D anny C as h? A
. Y es. Q . S o y o u a d m it th a t? A
. Y es. ************ Q
. B utyou do admi tthatther e w er e numer ous m emora ndum s t o you f r om D a n n y C a sh talk in g a b o u t ex p e c tatio n s o f y o u , co rre c t? A
. Y es , I agr ee. Q
. A nd a con st ant r ec u rr i ng them e w as hi s di rect i on t o y ou t o d o these e v a lu a tio n s, c o rre c t? A
. Y es. Q
. A nd you c ons t ant l y a dm i t t ed thr ough the yea r s , even t oday, you di dn’ tdo th e m , co rre c t? A
. Y es. ************ Q. Ye s , s i r . An d p a r to f th a ti s M a r v i n Ca s h l i v e d i n Co l u mb u s , a n d wh e n we se n t y o u to T u p e lo , h e n e e d e d (sic ) to b e h is e y e s a n d e a rs; is th a t co rre c t? A . T h a t w a s h is in te n tio n , y e s . Q
. A nd i n 1996 w hen D anny t ook over , he l i ved i n T upel o, di dn’ the? A
. Y es , he di d. Q
. S t i l l do es? A
. Y es. Q
. W asn’tal l he ( si c) aski ng you t o do t o be his eyes and ears i n C olum bu s?

### 35

A
. Y es, and I w as. Q . B u t y o u n e v e r d o c u m e n te d it a s h e re q u e ste d in th e d a ily sa les c a lls, d id you? A . T h a t’s c o rre c t. Q . R e fe rr in g to P a g e 1 8 4 o f y o u r d e p o s itio n , I a s k e d y o u a q u e s tio n . M y ques t i on: “W as ther e anythi ng aboutyourconductt hatr el at ed t o you l eavi ng C ash ?” C o rrect m e if

I rea d th is inco rrectl y , si r. A n sw er: “ In M r. C a sh ’s opi ni on, M r . D anny C as h’ s opi ni on, I ’ m s ur e ther e w as . ” M y ques t i on t o you: “W hatw er e thos e r eas ons ?” A ns w er : “Lack of r es pectthathe f el tI had f

or hi m and s ever al otherthi ngs thatyou not ed. ” M y ques t i on t o you: “Y ou di s agr ee w i th thos e r eas ons , corr ect ?” “ Y es . ” M y l as tques t i on: “B utyou k n o w h e b eli ev es th em to b e true , d o n ’ty o u ?” W h at w as y o u r an sw er? A
. “Y es . ” To w hatw as the ques t i on? The l ack of r es pectthathe f

el tI had? Q . R ig h t. Y o u d isa g re e w ith th o se re a so n s, c o rre c t? A
. T hatI di s agr eed w i th hi m thatr es pectnever–p ers on al r es pectf orD anny C as h neverent er ed i nt o anythi ng I di d, buthe f el tthati tdi d f

r om day one. Q
. A nd m y ques t i on t o you w as , “ B utyou know he bel i eves them t o be true, d o n ’t y o u ? ” Y o u s a id , “ Y e s .” A . A n d I s till a g re e w ith th a t a n s w e r. Q
. A l though you di s agr ee w i th the r eas ons he’ s gi ven, you know he bel i eves they’ r e true, don’ tyou? A
. O f cour s e, and that ’ s hi s pr er ogat i ve. ¶67. T hes e ar e butexam pl es of N eel y’ s num er ous admi s s i ons as t o hi s conduct , as r evea l ed i n the r ecor d. Fur therm or e, j us ta s C hamber l i n di d i n Colum bus Paper , N eel y t es t i f i ed that even he ( N eel y) bel i eved thatD anny w as act i ng bas ed on hi s (D anny’ s ) bel i ef t hatN eel y w as a bad e m pl oyee. In cons i der i ng t he s ubm i t t ed nondi s cr i m i nat ory r eas ons gi ven by C as h f or N eel y’ s t erm i nat i on, one nondi s cr i m i nat ory re as on w hi ch N eel y neverr ebutt ed, buti ndeed

### 36

h e c o n fe ss e d , w a s th a t o f in su b o rd in a tio n . J u d g e G riffis sa id it b e st in h is d iss e n t w h e n th is
case w as before the C ou rtof A pp eal s: H er e, the l egi t i m at e r eas on f orN eel y’ s t erm i nat i on – i ns ubor di nat i on – w as neverel i m i nat ed. I concl ude thatno r at i onal fi nderof f actcoul d concl ude that N eel y’ s t e r mi na t i on was b a s e d on h i s a ge a nd thu s u nl a w f ul age di s cr i m i nat i on. N eel y neverr ebutt ed the cl ai m of i ns ubor di nat i on and di d not t es t i f y t hathe had the s ubj ect i ve bel i ef thathe w as unl aw f

ul l y t erm i nat ed due t o hi s a ge. T her ef

or e, I a m of

the opi ni on thatCash D i s tr i buti ng C om pany, Inc
. w as e n ti tl ed to ju d g m e n t as a m att er o f l aw b ec au se th e re co rd co n clus ively rev ea led th at N ee ly’s insu b o rdin a ti o n w as a n o n d iscri m inato ry r eas on f orC as h’ s deci s i on. Cash , 2006 M i s s . C t . A pp. L E X I S 6, at*61, ¶67 ( G r i f f i s , J. , di s s ent i ng)
. I agr ee w i th J udge G r i f f i s . I n m y opi ni on, t he st atus of the r ecor d i s such that , l i ke Judge G r i f f i s , I w oul d f

i nd
as a mat t erof

w el l
- es t abl i s hed l aw thatthe evi dence poi nt s s o overw hel m i ngl y i n f avorof C as h t hatre as onabl e and f ai r - m i nded j ur or s i n t he exer ci s e of sound j udgm entcoul d nothave
arr i ved ata ver di ctot hert han one i n fa vorof the def endant , C as h D i s tr i but i ng C om pany, I nc. T hus , i n m y opi ni on, i tnece s s ar i l y f ol l ow s thatthe tr i al j udge err ed i n denyi ng C as h’ s m ot i on f o rJ N O V
. 3M

Co. v. Johnson , 895 So. 2d 151, 160- 61 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Jes co, I nc. v. W hitehead, 4 5 1 S o . 2 d 7 0 6 , 7 1 3 -14 (M iss. 1 9 8 4 ) (R o b ertson , J. , sp ec ial ly co n cu rri n g )). ¶68. I n s um , the re cor d and t he l aw requi res t hat t he j udgm ent s of the t r i al court and the C ou rto f A p p ea ls be r eversed and that j ud gm ent be r end ered here i n favor of C ash D istrib u tin g C o m p a n y , In c . B e c a u se th e m a jo rity fin d s o th e rw ise , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. S M I TH, C. J . , AND W AL LE R, P . J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.