Opinion ID: 202377
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Francis' Post-Termination Statements

Text: 39 Mulloy also argues that the district court should not have credited Francis' statements because Riall did not consult Francis prior to terminating Mulloy, and thus did not rely on the information that she provided in his decision to terminate. We disagree. Francis' statements mirror the conclusions of Bartsch who was consulted prior to Mulloy's termination and, therefore, corroborate Acushnet's basis for terminating him. The district court, therefore, did not err in considering this evidence. The district court likewise did not err in considering the statements of Bartsch, who ha[d] worked at Acushnet for eighteen (18) years, was knowledgeable of the necessary responsibilities and functions of the senior electrical engineering job at Ball Plant II, and who determined that Mr. Mulloy was unable to perform the necessary responsibilities and functions of the senior electrical engineer job from a remote location. 40