Opinion ID: 1301580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The consistency of Eagle Produce's explanations for the layoffs

Text: We reject the premise of Plaintiffs' argument that inconsistency between the explanations for the layoffs renders the explanations not credible. Eagle Produce proffered at least two justifications for the layoffs of both Moreno and Mancilla  an overall workforce reduction and performance deficiencies. Those explanations were each different, but not inconsistent. The reasonable interpretation is that the seasonal downturn necessitated a certain number of layoffs and that Eagle Produce considered job performance in deciding whom to lay off. See Aragon, 292 F.3d at 661 (We do not infer pretext from the simple fact that [an employer] had two different, although consistent, reasons for laying off an employee.).