Opinion ID: 171316
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Inconsistent Employer Reasons for Surplussing

Text: If an employer offers inconsistent reasons for surplussing, we consider (1) the timing of the change in position and (2) the evidentiary basis for the new rationale. Jaramillo, 427 F.3d at 1311. A change in explanation occurring after significant legal proceedings have occurred supports an inference of pretext. Id. Defendant gave numerous reasons at different times for surplussing Ms. Sanders. First, Mr. Wooten allegedly told Ms. Sanders directly that she was surplussed because of her age. However, in his affidavit and on his ranking notes, Mr. Wooten indicated Ms. Sanders' productivity was the problem. Defendant elsewhere stated that Ms. Sanders' lack of outside plant technical experience, work experience, and technical skills were the factors that led to her being surplussed. For instance, Mr. Harris stated that Ms. Sanders' ranking was primarily attributable to her non-technical background. A technical background is extremely valuable to an engineer's working knowledge of outside plant facilities. Ms. Sanders was at a disadvantage since she did not have outside plant experience. (R. at 304, Harris Aff. 4 ¶ 11.) Defendant provided its age and productivity reasons during the RIF process both in Mr. Wooten's conversation with Ms. Sanders and in the notes from the ranking meeting. However, Defendant's later, inconsistent explanation was provided after Ms. Sanders filed suit. I find this change in explanation supports a finding of pretext because Defendant's rationale changed after significant legal proceedings had occurred.