Opinion ID: 171289
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Inquiry

Text: We must first determine which incidents are relevant to the pretext inquiry. In Ms. Maston’s termination statement, Wear specifically identified two comments that Ms. Maston made that justified her dismissal. But in seeking summary judgment, St. John presented broader evidence of Ms. Maston’s 1 As a general matter it is the plaintiff’s burden to show that each of the employer’s reasons was pretextual. Tyler v. RE/MAX Mountain States, Inc., 232 F.3d 808, 814 (10th Cir. 2000). When, however, the multiple grounds are closely intertwined and plaintiff shows that one of them is strongly suspicious, she may prevail. Id. -7- behavior. Thomas stated in his deposition, for example, that during the interviews about the ABC orders, Ms. Maston kept cursing and “kept saying she wouldn’t answer my questions.” Aplt. App. at 123. He also stated that he believed she was being evasive, although his opinion of Ms. Maston’s conduct was of limited value, except to the extent adopted by Wear, because Wear, not Thomas, was the decision-maker. See Kendrick, 220 F.3d at 1231. St. John’s reliance on such additional incidents was permissible. First, there were no inconsistencies between the two comments specifically described in the termination statement and the behavior later cited in depositions and affidavits. Second, all the described incidents fit within the overall justification given for the termination—namely, insubordination and failure to cooperate with an investigation. See Hardy v. S.F. Phosphates Ltd., 185 F.3d 1076, 1080-81 (10th Cir. 1999). We may thus go beyond the two specific comments set forth in the termination statement in determining whether St. John’s reasons for termination were unworthy of belief.