Opinion ID: 201844
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Falsity of stated reason

Text: 67 Ramírez also alleges that BIPI falsified the physicians' statements or requested them only after it had made the decision to terminate him. He has provided no evidence, however, to substantiate those allegations, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) (cautioning that [w]hen a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party's pleading), 19 and the evidence that is in the record supports a finding that BIPI did not fabricate its articulated reason for terminating Ramírez's employment. 68 In a letter confirming Ramírez's termination, BIPI attributed its decision to Ramírez's violation of the Prescription Drug Marketing Act and Company policy as it relates to sample distribution and documentation. BIPI has produced the physicians' statements that led it to this conclusion, which it has articulated consistently throughout the course of this litigation. See Zapata-Matos, 277 F.3d at 47 (emphasizing that explanations by representatives of an employer for their decision to terminate the plaintiff are themselves consistent and not contradicted by either contemporaneous documents or statements made at termination, or statements made later). As the district court recognized, BIPI also proffered evidence of other perceived irregularities in Plaintiff's sales practice dating back several years, as well as evidence of its investigation into the irregularities. The record thus presents no basis for a finding that BIPI did not believe, in good faith, that it had a legitimate reason to terminate Ramírez. We recognize that the employer's good faith belief is not automatically conclusive on the issue of pretext. However, there is also no evidence in the record to support a jury finding that the articulated reason, though honestly held, constituted discrimination (e.g., stereotyping). Id. at 45-46.