Opinion ID: 615269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Inconsistencies in HBC's Explanations for Twigg's Termination

Text: Next, Twigg contends that Kathy Sade offered inconsistent explanations for Twigg's termination. Specifically, Twigg claims that in the termination letter, Sade asserted Twigg's violation of HBC's notice-of-absence policy as the reason for the termination; however, in her deposition, Sade cited Twigg's performance issues as the justification. Assuming, arguendo, that Sade offered inconsistent rationales for the termination, [9] Twigg has once again failed to explain how this evidence directly shows retaliatory motive. Inconsistency evidence, like Twigg's first two forms of evidence, has traditionally been associated with proving pretext. See Jaramillo v. Colo. Judicial Dep't, 427 F.3d 1303, 1310, 1311, 1312 (10th Cir.2005) (per curiam). In other words, an employee relies on an employer's change in explanation to show that the employer is attempt[ing] to mask an illegitimate motive. Id. at 1312. Thus, evidence of inconsistent explanations reflects an employer's retaliatory animus, if at all, only indirectly. Furthermore, we have recognized that inconsistency evidence is only helpful to a plaintiff if the employer has changed its explanation under circumstances that suggest dishonesty or bad faith. Id. at 1310. Twigg does not contend that such circumstances exist here.