Opinion ID: 201844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Employee discipline

Text: 58 Ramírez contends that BIPI has a disciplinary procedure requiring progressive discipline before termination or discharge and that the procedure was not followed in his case. He further asserts that other employees did not use the proper sampling and targeting procedures but that no one else was disciplined, much less discharged. 59 It is true that BIPI's employee manual sets forth a procedure to monitor consistent non-compliance with the rules established for ensuring sampling accountability. However, the manual also sets forth a series of unacceptable practices that will result in varying levels of disciplinary action up to and including termination.  (Emphasis added.) One of the practices listed is any violation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act of 1987, the ground that BIPI has cited for Ramírez's termination. Moreover, the manual also cautions that [t]ermination of employment can result ... in the event of any breach of discipline or job standards which is deemed serious enough. BIPI apparently concluded that Ramírez's perceived violations of the PDMA and company policies designed to comply with that Act were serious enough to result in termination, rather than a lesser sanction. It is not our role to second-guess the merits of that conclusion. See Mesnick v. Gen. Elec. Co., 950 F.2d 816, 825 (1st Cir.1991) (Courts may not sit as super personnel departments, assessing the merits — or even the rationality — of employers' nondiscriminatory business decisions.). 60 Although Ramírez asserts that other employees did not use proper sampling procedures but were not disciplined, he has not identified any employee who engaged in sampling violations akin to those for which he was terminated. The closest Ramírez comes is an allegation that García, his former supervisor, gave orders to use un-approved and illegal materials. The documents to which Ramírez cites in support of this proposition are far from clear, however, and they do not indicate whether, if García did violate company policy designed to comply with the PDMA, decisionmakers at BIPI were aware of the violation. Accordingly, we reject Ramírez's claim that his termination reflects disparate treatment based on his age.