Opinion ID: 4514973
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to Show up or Call in

Text: Willard has pointed clearly to a genuine and material fact dispute regarding the length of his suspension, leading to his tardy appearance on Wednesday, December 28, 2016, which formed a basis for his termination. First, he argues that this justification had no basis in fact.10 Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Willard, he was told that he was suspended for a week, the Employee Warning Notice lacked a return date, he was not given an opportunity to sign a complete Notice, he did not receive a copy of a complete Notice, and he did not receive a copy of the Sheriff’s Case Report, which noted his return date, until December 27, 2016, R. 16-2 (Willard Dep. at 114) (Page ID #127). The district court failed to view the facts in the light most favorable to Willard and instead judged Willard’s credibility and concluded that Willard “willfully maintained his ignorance by not signing the paper.” R. 24 (Hr’g Tr. at 25) (Page ID 10The three-part test for pretext “need not be applied rigidly,” but rather “is a commonsense inquiry.” Blizzard, 698 F.3d at 285. We consider Willard’s argument as one that his termination had no basis in fact and one that it was not the actual motivation for his termination. No. 19-1763 Willard v. Huntington Ford, Inc. Page 17 #487). This was error, and it is magnified by the fact that this was the only one of Willard’s pretext arguments that the district court considered explicitly in its brief ruling. Despite its protestations that there is no factual dispute on this point, Huntington Ford notes that Willard’s testimony that he was told to return to work after a full week had elapsed “is inconsistent with the December 21, 2016 Employee Warning Notice, which he refused to sign, and the Sheriff’s report.” Appellee Br. at 34–35. This inconsistency is precisely the point at summary judgment. To the extent that Huntington Ford invites us to make witness credibility determinations, believing the company over Willard, or to weigh the evidence, concluding that Willard’s testimony is less persuasive than the Notice or three supervisors’ testimonies, we decline to do so. A nonmoving plaintiff’s opinion testimony is evidence, see Blizzard, 698 F.3d at 286, and it is for the jury to determine its relative truth and weight. Second, Willard offers evidence regarding his return date that indicates his failure to show up was not the motivation behind his discharge. He testified that Scoggin and Schiller would not show him a Notice that contained the dates of his suspension, which is consistent with his theory that the return date of Monday, December 26, 2016, was manufactured by Huntington Ford. Additionally, it is undisputed that Willard had an “[e]xcellent” attendance record, R. 16-11 (Schiller Dep. at 108–09) (Page ID #252–53), and that he returned to work promptly after his previous two suspensions. This showing casts further doubt upon Huntington Ford’s explanation that it terminated Willard in part for his failure to show up for work.