Opinion ID: 167100
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Manipulation of Pippin's evaluations

Text: 50 Pippin also asserts pretext by asserting that the evaluations and rankings used by management for the announced purpose of determining bonus levels is known and understood by management to be the likely basis for layoffs or reductions in force. He claims that the RIF must have been in the wind at the time of the 1999 ranking process and that his 1999 evaluations were manipulated in order to place him last because there was personal animosity between himself and one of the team supervisors. Finally, Pippin argues that the criticisms in his evaluations were false, vague, and ... put in the evaluation so they could fire Pippin because of his age and that instead he had very substantial success at Burlington. 51 However, we see no permissible inference of pretext from any of these self-serving claims. For example, Pippin complains that one of the upper-level managers had previously suggested that Pippin should be managed out of the company. 9 He asserts that this establishes an ulterior motive other than the supposedly objective criteria which Defendant claimed to use which Pippin asserts evidences manufactured reasons for termination. To the contrary, this statement simply supports Burlington's assertion that Pippin had a longstanding performance problem prior to the 2000 RIF. 52 Similarly, Pippin's complaint that his 1999 evaluation was manipulated is without merit. He cites two versions of this evaluation in the record—the first is unsigned and the second is signed by Pippin, Pippin's immediate supervisor, and his supervisor's manager, and dated January 2000, well before the April 2000 RIF. Pippin notes that the second copy includes additional negative comments that do not appear on the first, unsigned version. 10 Although this language may well have been added, Pippin's final scores in the 360 degree feedback portion of the evaluation are the same on both versions and, on both, Pippin received an overall rating of Met Expectations +. Furthermore, similar, albeit more generic comments, are on both versions under Pippin's Development Needs. Finally, multiple supervisors' opinions are imbedded in the ranking process itself and, as this evaluation is in substance consistent with Pippin's earlier evaluations, we see no reason to suspect pretextual manipulation of the evaluations. 53 Finally, although Pippin certainly thinks he was well qualified and a good performer, [i]t is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant, not plaintiff's perception of [him]self. Branson v. Price River Coal Co., 853 F.2d 768, 772 (10th Cir.1988). Indeed, an employer may chose to conduct its RIF according to its preferred criteria of performance ... and we will not disturb that exercise of defendant's business judgment. Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1169; see also Lucas v. Dover Corp., Norris Div., 857 F.2d 1397, 1403-04 (10th Cir.1988) (This court will not second guess business decisions made by employers, in the absence of some evidence of impermissible motives.); Simms, 165 F.3d at 1330 (noting it is not court's role to establish defendant's hiring criteria or act as super personnel department). 11 Pippin may have produced technical results, but Burlington's decision to terminate Pippin due to his poor soft skills does not warrant an inference of pretext. 54