Opinion ID: 794071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Lack of Interest in Process Validation Assessments

Text: 21 Boeing's foremost explanation of Tomasso's layoff is that he seemed uninterested in Process Validation Assessments (PVAs), a type of inspection that Boeing used to monitor its subcontractors. Under the traditional system of standard source inspections, a Boeing employee would simply inspect the products ready for delivery to Boeing. In contrast, a PVA does not involve actual product inspections but instead predicts a supplier's ability to produce satisfactory products based on a review of the supplier's production capacity. The Supplier Quality Department was increasing its use of PVAs, and Wood characterized this shift as the primary focus and goal of our organization. 22 Wood testified in his deposition that he gave Tomasso low scores in at least four categories because he thought that Tomasso lacked interest in performing PVAs. According to Wood, Tomasso said that he wasn't really an advocate to the PVA process and was not comfortable working with it. In his affidavit, however, Tomasso denies making such a statement: At no time did I express to Mr. Wood that I was not interested in PVA, and I never told him that I would not participate in PVA or the transfer to the PVA method, or that I was not willing to accept new changes. 23 Wood further stated that Tomasso failed to attend a PVA planning session. Tomasso, however, claims that he did not attend the session because it was not mandatory, and because he was having health problems that would have made it difficult to travel to the session, which was held in New Orleans. 24 Wood also testified that Tomasso did not initially list developing PVA skills as a goal in a performance development partnership plan. 5 Additionally, Wood stated that procurement quality specialists were expected to identify, out of the suppliers with which they worked, those that were ready for the transition from standard source inspections to PVAs, even if management had not already designated the suppliers as candidates for PVAs. According to Wood, Tomasso did not engage in transition PVA activities for suppliers that management had not already designated. 25 Tomasso's affidavit paints a very different picture. Tomasso states that he was one of only three employees selected to participate in PVA activities for a large supplier located in Middle River, Maryland. Tomasso worked on this PVA in 2001, the year in which Boeing laid him off. Wood characterizes the Middle River project as a PVA training, and claims that Tomasso did not participate as avidly as other employees. However, Wood conceded that the Middle River team did a good job and that as far as he knew, Tomasso was an integral part of the team. 26 Tomasso also claims that during reviews in August and December 2001, Wood did not state that Tomasso's performance, including his work on PVAs, was deficient in any respect. In fact, Wood wrote on Tomasso's evaluation for January through December 2001: Joe—goals and objectives achieved to acceptable levels for this year. Initial PVA process started with supply base. Wood also marked on the evaluation that Tomasso had met expectations relating to planning PVA audits on his selected suppliers. 27 Finally, Tomasso states that he began to transition his primary supplier to PVAs, and completed the transition in December of 2001 (after he was selected for layoff). This supplier accounted for a full 75 percent of Tomasso's workload. 28 In short, Tomasso and Wood tell radically different stories about Tomasso's interest in PVAs. A factfinder who credited Tomasso's testimony could conclude that Wood gave him acceptable evaluations for his PVA work and never told him that he needed to improve or increase his PVA work, that Tomasso began to transition his primary supplier to PVAs, and that he was selected to participate in an important PVA project soon before he was laid off. The factfinder could further conclude that Tomasso never expressed disinterest in PVAs, and that he missed a PVA transition meeting solely for health reasons. 29 Since Tomasso's evidence relates directly to his interest in and aptitude for PVAs, it involves core facts relevant to Boeing's explanation for Tomasso's dismissal. See Kautz, 412 F.3d at 467. Tomasso's evidence, if believed, does not merely suggest that the low score assigned by Wood was wrong or mistaken, Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765, or that Wood innocently misperceived Tomasso's interest in PVAs. Rather, one who believed Tomasso's affidavit could find such weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in Boeing's explanation as to deem it `unworthy of credence.' Id. at 765 (citation omitted). To be sure, Tomasso discredits Boeing's rationale in part by pointing to external evidence, such as earlier evaluations and his participation in the Middle River Project. But such evidence can be used to show pretext. See Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1073-74 (3d Cir.1996) (en banc) (stating that an employee could show pretext in part by adducing affirmative evidence of her own accomplishments, including awards, a promotion, and a salary increase). In sum, Tomasso's alleged lack of interest in PVAs does not provide a sufficient basis for summary judgment.