Opinion ID: 215941
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Termination as Driver

Text: Mr. Watson next argues that C.R. England terminated his employment as an independent-contractor driver for the company due to his HIV status. As discussed above, after Mr. Watson deadheaded to Florida he remained there for a period of more than two weeks with his leased truck; he did not accept new loads, generate any income, or make lease payments on his truck. During this time, C.R. England attempted to contact Mr. Watson, but received no response. On March 4, 2003, C.R. England terminated Mr. Watson's Lease Agreement, and Opportunity Leasing repossessed his truck. In justifying the severance of the relationship, C.R. England cites Mr. Watson's (1) poor performance, which includes failing to respond and accept loads, and (2) the fact that he defaulted on his lease (i.e., falling too far in the []hole to recover, EEOC App. at 435). C.R. England Br., No. 09-4217, at 41. Again, these justifications satisfy C.R. England's exceedingly light burden, Goodwin, 275 F.3d at 1013, which shifts the burden to Mr. Watson to demonstrate pretext. Mr. Watson does not attempt to undermine the justifications regarding his poor performance or his failure to make required payments under the lease agreement; therefore, he has not shown that these legitimate, non-discriminatory justifications are unworthy of belief. Stover, 382 F.3d at 1071. Because Mr. Watson has not demonstrated that these justifications were pretext masking discriminatory animus, Proctor v. United Parcel Serv., 502 F.3d 1200, 1208 (10th Cir.2007) (quoting Piercy, 480 F.3d at 1198) (internal quotation marks omitted), this claim is without merit. Although Mr. Watson does not attempt to undermine the justifications discussed above, he does attack an alleged third justificationthat he abandoned his vehicle. Mr. Watson argues that he never abandoned his vehicle, which clearly shows pretext. Watson Opening Br., No. 09-4217, at 45. However, the record demonstrates that C.R. England never justified the termination on the ground that Mr. Watson had abandoned his truck. The record evidence that Mr. Watson identifies related to vehicle abandonment is unavailing. Specifically, Mr. Watson points to the deposition of Kimberly Cage, the manager of training operations, who testified that another C.R. England employee had told her four years prior that Mr. Watson had abandoned his truck. Watson App. at 619 (Dep. of Kimberly Cage, dated July 11, 2007). Examined in context, this single statementwhich was not otherwise used to justify the terminationis not enough to establish pretext, particularly in light of the above-cited justifications, which we find to be legitimate and nondiscriminatory. See Zamora, 478 F.3d at 1178 ([T]his Court frequently examines statements and events in context to determine their legal effect or whether they genuinely create a disputed question of material fact.). Accordingly, Mr. Watson cannot demonstrate that C.R. England's justifications for terminating the lease agreement were pretextual, and the district court committed no error in entering judgment in the company's favor.