Opinion ID: 4527006
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: False Explanations

Text: Mr. Seastrand also contends the bank’s explanations were false. First, he asserts his poor judgment must be pretext for discrimination because he had consistently satisfactory performance reviews, he secured a $1 billion loan, and the 13 Mirinda loan was a significant source of revenue for which he received a $95,000 bonus. But we may not second-guess the bank’s business judgment. See DePaula, 859 F.3d at 970. Even if Mr. Seastrand was a satisfactory, profitable employee, none of these circumstances suggests the bank’s reason for firing him was false or that the decision-makers did not honestly believe he exhibited poor judgment, both in soliciting a job while working on the Mirinda loan and in approving the storedmaterials draw for the Miller Defendants. See Swackhammer v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 493 F.3d 1160, 1170 (10th Cir. 2007) (“The relevant inquiry is not whether the employer’s proffered reasons were wise, fair or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs.”). Second, Mr. Seastrand argues it is false that he made the “unilateral decision” to approve the stored-materials draw. Aplt. Br. at 41 (internal quotation marks omitted). He says the draw was processed by the loan administrator, Mr. Libal, and he had no authority to approve the draw. The record does indicate that Mr. Libal processed the draw, but it also indicates that he did so with Mr. Seastrand’s approval. See, e.g., Aplt. App., Vol. 11 at 1693-94. Whether Mr. Seastrand had authority to approve it independently is immaterial because the evidence shows he did approve it and that he repeatedly took responsibility for doing so. See, e.g., id., Vol. 9 at 1341 (Apr. 15, 2016 meeting notes); id., Vol. 12 at 1748-49 (Pace Depo.); id., Vol. 13 at 1915 (Pace Decl.). The only rebuttal evidence Mr. Seastrand offers does not suggest otherwise. He attempts to deny that he accepted responsibility for approving the draw at the April 15 meeting, which included himself, Mr. Pace, Mr. Rudy, 14 Mr. Huppert, and Ms. Pearce, and he claims that Ms. Pearce’s testimony confirms he did not accept responsibility for approving the draw at that meeting. See Aplt. Br. at 42. But her testimony indicates she had no specific recollection of a meeting or even a phone call with Mr. Pace on April 15. See Aplt. App., Vol. 22 at 3827. However, she did testify that Mr. Seastrand “knew about the stored-materials draws and . . . he approved them.” Id. This testimony does not create a fact issue as to whether Mr. Seastrand approved the draw. And his remaining arguments do not suggest the reason for firing him was false.