Opinion ID: 778936
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: JAML — Pretext and Gender Discrimination

Text: 30 We disagree with Appellants' claim that the district court should have granted JAML on Warren's Counts I and II. Appellants claim there was insufficient evidence of pretext on Counts I and II, and gender discrimination on Count I. Much of Appellants' claim rests on the credibility of Seidner's testimony where he states his reasons for Warren's termination. While this is probative evidence supporting Appellants' position, it was not the only testimony before the jury and this court will not engage in a weighing or evaluation of the evidence, as these are jury functions. Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 150, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000). 31 Along with circumstantial evidence of Appellants' discriminatory acts in general, Warren presented evidence that the allegations against her were fabricated and that Appellants asked witnesses to falsify statements. [A]lthough the court should review the record as a whole, it must disregard all evidence favorable to the moving party that the jury is not required to believe. Id. at 151, 120 S.Ct. 2097. Applying this principle, we affirm the judgment of the district court denying Appellants' motion for judgment as a matter of law. 32