Opinion ID: 1042298
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: James Peel’s Testimony and Clinic Incident

Text: Next, the district court considered Chevron’s claim that it fired Ion because of two incidents that occurred during Ion’s suspension: (1) James Peel’s allegation that Ion told him he was planning on faking a nervous breakdown, and (2) Ion’s alleged abusive behavior toward clinic employees. Ion denies both allegations. The district court relied on a Fifth Circuit case, Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corporation, 602 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2010), for the proposition that in assessing Chevron’s claim, the proper inquiry is whether Chevron reasonably believed and relied on the information received from its employees in good faith. The court found that Ion had provided no evidence that Chevron’s reliance on the reports of employees was in bad faith, and that for this reason, Chevron had met its burden under the final step. However, the case is distinguishable because it was decided with considerably less evidence of retaliatory motive than is present in the instant case.