Opinion ID: 4514973
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Conduct on December 21, 2016

Text: First, Willard argues that his suspension for the December 21, 2016 incident had no basis in fact. Appellant Br. at 25–26. Willard testified that he was not at fault for the incident with Duley, including that he never yelled, which is corroborated by his statement in the Sheriff’s Case Report. He also testified that Huntington Ford seized upon this incident to fabricate a legitimate reason to terminate him. R. 16-2 (Willard Dep. at 107) (Page ID #125). Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Willard, Duley was at fault for the disagreement on December 21, 2016 and Willard did not actively participate in the disagreement. Rather, he told Duley to cease her physical contact with him and submitted to her pushing and shoving. It is No. 19-1763 Willard v. Huntington Ford, Inc. Page 18 also disputed whether Willard simply missed Malouf’s desk when he put down the deal jacket or whether he threw it on purpose to the floor. See R. 16-2 (Willard Dep. at 109–10) (Page ID #125–26); R. 16-7 (Malouf Dep. at 73) (Page ID #192). Second, Willard argues that this incident with Duley did not actually motivate his discharge. Scoggin did not know whether Willard would have been fired on Monday or Tuesday if he had showed up for work. R. 16-6 (Scoggin Dep. at 79) (Page ID #163). This demonstrates that the incident on December 21, 2016, even if sufficient on its own to justify Willard’s termination, was not the cause for his termination. This showing and Willard’s previous showing regarding his absences together rebut Huntington Ford’s two most prominent asserted legitimate reasons for Willard’s discharge.11