Opinion ID: 691962
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: General Physics' Defense

Text: 30 Under McDonnell Douglas, once a plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie case, the defendant is obligated to produce evidence  'which, taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a [non-retaliatory] reason for the adverse action.'  Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1226 (quoting Hicks, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 2748 (emphasis in original)). The district court found that General Physics established through Thames' testimony and the letter of termination that it discharged LaFond because he exhibited recklessness and poor judgment [sic] during the course of events set in motion by [LaFond's] 'anonymous' letter. LaFond, No. 2:92CV571, slip op. at 14. We find the evidence sufficient to support a conclusion that General Physics met its burden of articulating a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for LaFond's discharge. See Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1226.