Opinion ID: 170494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Credibility of Proffered Reasons

Text: Mr. Matthews contends that all the reasons articulated by the defendants are pretextual because they are not credible. Specifically, he claims that his testimony and the testimony of his co-worker undermine the credibility of the defendants’ reasons. First, Mr. Matthews challenges the credibility of Ms. Biehl’s assertion that he was unable to multi-task, in part, because he could not answer the phone while -14- working on other projects. 8 He offers his co-worker’s testimony that Mr. Matthews’s phone did not ring an “excessive” amount and that he could multitask. His co-worker’s opinion, however, has no bearing on what Ms. Biehl deemed “excessive” and does not undermine her assertion that she viewed Mr. Matthews’s performance as deficient. See Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs. Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1231 (10th Cir. 2000) (“[W]e look at the facts as they appear to the person making the decision to terminate the plaintiff.”); see also Furr v. Seagate Tech. Inc., 82 F.3d 980, 988 (10th Cir. 1996) (“It is the manager’s perception of the employee’s performance that is relevant.”). Mr. Matthews’s next credibility challenge concerns the defendants’ contention that he worked at a “slow” pace. As the District Court noted, Ms. Biehl received complaints from several sales managers that credit checks were not being completed in a timely manner. Ms. Biehl also testified that Mr. Matthews did not cut off customers’ terminals immediately upon learning that the customer had insufficient funds in its account. His co-worker’s testimony that she was not 8 Ms. Biehl said her concerns with Mr. Matthews’s ability to multi-task were due, partly, to the fact that he often did not switch quickly from working on one task to answering retailers’ telephone calls. Specifically, she stated: If the phone rang, he would ignore it, because he could not, you know, have Word up and be [writing a letter] and then the phone ring and answer, it be a customer, and then switch over to the computer system to check whatever the customer needed on the phone. He was not taking the time to, you know, just pick up, switch—he couldn’t switch from one thing to another very quickly. It was a constant “I’m doing just this and that’s it.” -15- “aware of Mr. Matthews having any issues regarding any failures on his behalf in shutting down of terminals,” and Mr. Matthews’s testimony that he performed credit checks in a timely manner are simply not relevant to what Ms. Biehl believed. See Kendrick, 220 F. 3d 1220; see also Furr, 82 F.3d 980. This evidence does not therefore create an inference of pretext. Mr. Matthews similarly relies on his co-worker’s testimony to establish that he did not have a poor attendance record, did not take excessive breaks, and did not excessively socialize or make personal telephone calls. Again, his coworker’s mere opinion is irrelevant. Moreover, attendance records and notes that Ms. Biehl took documenting Mr. Matthews’s absences and their conversation about his cigarette and lunch breaks demonstrate that she honestly believed there were problems in these areas. See Rivera v. City & County of Denver, 365 F.3d 912, 924–25 (10th Cir. 2004) (stating that we do not ask “whether the employer’s proffered reasons were wise, fair, or correct, but whether it honestly believed those reasons and acted in good faith upon those beliefs” (quotation and alterations omitted)). Finally, Mr. Matthews claims that the defendants’ inclusion of his failure to act upon counseling as a reason for termination raises an inference of pretext because he was never counseled for poor job performance. 9 But, even if Mr. 9 Although Ms. Biehl testified that she counseled Mr. Matthews about his performance, Mr. Matthews testified that she did not. -16- Matthews could show that the defendants did not in fact believe that he failed to act upon counseling, he would not necessarily meet his burden under McDonnell Douglas. “As a general rule, an employee must proffer evidence that shows each of the employer’s justifications are pretextual.” Tyler, 232 F.3d at 814. At minimum, a plaintiff must cast “substantial doubt on many of the employer’s multiple reasons.” Id. Not having done so here, Mr. Matthews has not met his burden.