Opinion ID: 3026635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to respond to customer complaints

Text: Steward also presented evidence to cast doubt on Sears’ claim that Steward was terminated because he failed to respond to customer complaints. In the various PPIs, Schweizer listed several customers that Steward had not properly handled, namely, customers Montana, Stagg, Givens, Rodel and Gaglia. However, Steward presented evidence that these customers were ultimately satisfied and that he had received praise from several customers and had received a rating of “3” for customer service in 2001. Steward also noted that the five identified customers with complaints were only a handful out of the 17,000 customers that his technicians serviced in 2001. Carter testified that 24 “we all had been in situations like” Steward’s. App. 1273 (“I think we all had been in situations like that [being criticized for handling of customer complaints], because once it gets to the [District Service Manager] there’s time where they say that you didn’t handle it, but it’s always, if you really look at it, it’s always a breakdown somewhere where a call-taker might not have got all the information that you needed to take care of that problem.”). Carter’s general impression of Steward’s interaction with customers was that “he did a great job with customers, if I had to say so myself, I think he did a great job with them.” App. 1299. Steward also pointed out the lack of documentary evidence to support Sears’ contention that Steward was not returning customer calls. d. Failure to be properly involved in “multiple repair attempts” Steward also presented evidence to cast doubt on Sears’ claim that it terminated Steward because he was not properly involved in “multiple repair attempts.” In the initial PPI, Schweizer informed Steward that he expected Steward to be more involved when a technician returned to the same customer’s home multiple times in order to perform the required service. However, Steward testified that it was not true that he was not providing input to his technicians on multiple repair attempts. He testified that he “used to routinely check multiple attempts to see what was going on” and that he “would monitor the multiple attempts to see why, what was the cause of it, if it was a routing issue, if it was a parts issue, if it was a tool issue.” App. 469-70. He stated that he provided feedback to his technicians “all the time.” App. 470. Carter agreed that Steward was “an excellent motivator” and that the technicians felt that Steward cared 25 about them. App. 1298. Steward testified that he was not shown any documentation, such as a multiple attempt report, that supported Schweizer’s contention that Steward was not actively involved in multiple repair attempts. App. 463. 3. Sufficiency of the Steward’s Evidence Sears contends that, even if we conclude that Steward established a prima facie case of age discrimination and presented sufficient evidence to rebut Sears’ stated reasons for terminating Steward, we should nonetheless affirm the order granting judgment as a matter of law on the ground that Steward’s weak prima facie case plus the weak evidence casting doubt on Sears’ stated reasons for the termination is insufficient to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Sears terminated Steward based on his age. See Alvarez-Fonseca v. Pepsi Cola of Puerto Rico Bottling Co., 152 F.3d 17, 25-26 (1st Cir. 1998). We disagree. Based on the record before them, the members of the jury could have concluded that it was more likely than not that Sears terminated Steward based on his age. See St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 511 (1993) (“The factfinder's disbelief of the reasons put forward by the defendant (particularly if disbelief is accompanied by a suspicion of mendacity) may, together with the elements of the prima facie case, suffice to show intentional discrimination.”). We will therefore reverse the District Court’s order granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of Sears.