Source: http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180320_0000944.MFL.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 11:11:26+00:00

Document:
This matter comes before the Court on defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #39) and supporting documentation filed on December 18, 2017. Plaintiff filed a Response in Opposition (Doc. #44) and supporting documentation on January 29, 2018. A Reply (Doc. #48) and Sur-reply (Doc. #22) were filed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied.
A court may grant summary judgment only if satisfied that “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A fact is “material” if it goes to “a legal element of the claim under the applicable substantive law” and thus may impact the case's outcome. Allen v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 121 F.3d 642, 646 (11th Cir. 1997). “An issue of fact is ‘genuine' if the record taken as a whole could lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party.” Hickson Corp. v. N. Crossarm Co., 357 F.3d 1256, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004).
“The burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party.” Walker v. Darby, 911 F.2d 1573, 1576 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986)). “[O]nce the moving party has met that burden by presenting evidence which, if uncontradicted, would entitle it to a directed verdict at trial, ” the party opposing summary judgment must “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. A mere ‘scintilla' of evidence supporting the opposing party's position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.” Id. at 1576-77. In ruling on the motion, the court must view all evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007); Tana v. Dantanna's, 611 F.3d 767, 772 (11th Cir. 2010).
Summary judgment should be denied not just where the parties disagree on issues of material fact, but also “where the parties agree on the basic facts, but disagree about the factual inferences that should be drawn from these facts.” Warrior Tombigbee Transp. Co. v. M/V Nan Fung, 695 F.2d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Allen v. Bd. of Pub. Educ., 495 F.3d 1306, 1315 (11th Cir. 2007) (“If a reasonable fact finder evaluating the evidence could draw more than one inference from the facts, and if that inference introduces a genuine issue of material fact, then the court should not grant summary judgment.”). Put simply, if the resolution of a material fact or the inference to be drawn therefrom presents a “he said, she said” scenario, and if the record has evidence genuinely supporting both sides of the story, then summary judgment is not appropriate.
The parties have submitted Ponce's performance evaluations from 1988-2016. (Doc. #39-1, pp. 72-74; Doc. #44-1.) Throughout the years, Ponce generally performed as “expected” or “competent, ” but he did receive some unsatisfactory ratings and at times was disciplined and reprimanded. See, e.g., Doc. #44-1, p. 9, 2010-11, written reprimand for windshield damage and not servicing a container/neglect of duty; p. 13, 2008-09, written reprimand for not using personal eye protection, needs to improve compliance with safety procedures and written reprimand for mailbox damage; p. 22, 2005, involved in a preventable accident; Doc. #44-3, p. 3, 2000-01, involved in an accident. Although he was reprimanded, Ponce's total overall ratings remained “expected” on every evaluation until 2015.
Manuel needs to improve job performance. His dumpster repair skills need to improve so he can perform sufficient work that will last. He needs to improve initiating work on his own and be more efficient with the time he takes to complete assignments and do so with minimal supervision.
On January 19, 2016, Wilcox submitted a memorandum to Kotala, describing three instances of insubordination/neglect by Ponce that had occurred that day. (Doc. #44-21.) The parties' version of events as to what transpired vary; therefore, the following is a summation of the three instances but is not necessarily accepted as undisputed evidence.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.