Opinion ID: 170494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Lack of Documentation

Text: Mr. Matthews also contends that Ms. Biehl failed to document his performance problems. The lack of documentation, he argues, is a procedural irregularity that raises an inference of pretext because it is contrary to the defendants’ mandatory discipline policy outlined in a document titled “Euronet Worldwide Manager’s Handbook.” See Doebele v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 342 F.3d 1117, 1139 n.11 (10th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that “disturbing procedural irregularities, including deviations from normal company procedure, provide support for a plaintiff’s assertion of pretext” (quotation omitted)). At the outset, we agree with the District Court that it is far from clear that -11- Ms. Biehl was even bound by the policies reflected in the manager’s handbook. 6 Even assuming, however, that the manager’s handbook contained a company-wide policy to be followed by Ms. Biehl, there is no evidence that her actions were contrary to that policy. The handbook describes the defendants’ “progressive discipline policy” as encompassing four steps: a verbal warning, a written warning, suspension, and termination. The handbook explicitly states, however, that “Euronet may use progressive discipline at its discretion,” and goes on to make clear that “[t]here may be more circumstances when one or more steps are bypassed” and that “disciplinary action may call for any of [these] four steps.” (emphasis added). The handbook does not expressly require that written documentation support disciplinary action up to and including termination. The language Mr. Matthews relies upon is not to the contrary. For example, he notes that the handbook states that “[i]t is crucial that a company keep thorough documentation . . . in order to support a disciplinary action,” that “[a]n effective discipline system requires appropriate documentation of all incidents in regard to employee conduct and performance,” and that an employee’s personnel file “should” contain appropriate documentation before 6 Ms. Long testified that the defendants’ policies are expressed in the employee handbook and not in the manager’s handbook. According to Ms. Long, the manager’s handbook was developed and used only in 2002 in Little Rock, Arkansas, as a tool to assist managers in the Little Rock office, a newly acquired subsidiary at that time. Moreover, Ms. Biehl testified that she had not seen the manager’s handbook at any time prior to her deposition. Mr. Matthews does not point to any evidence that casts doubt on the testimony of either woman. -12- termination. But given that the defendants’ policy regarding the use of progressive discipline is discretionary, these statements cannot be read as imposing a mandatory documentation requirement on managers before they take disciplinary action. Rather, these statements merely emphasize the merit in documenting performance issues. Mr. Matthews similarly cites the testimony of Ms. Long, Ms. Biehl, and PaySpot president Tom Cregan that documenting performance problems is generally a good practice, but again, this does not indicate that the defendants’ policy required documentation. Thus, the defendants’ failure to document Mr. Matthews’s performance problems is not contrary to a company policy. 7