Opinion ID: 2773338
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Legitimate Reason

Text: Having given Ameen the benefit of a prima facie assumption, the burden shifts to Amphenol to provide a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Ameen. Amphenol asserts that Ameen was fired for stealing from the company by consistently taking unauthorized paid break time. The company also says it rightly considered Ameen's previous warning for failing to follow procedure.5 Ameen challenges Amphenol's proffered reason for the termination, but does not dispute the evidence which demonstrates that he took an additional fifteen minutes or so of paid break time consistently over a two-year period. In fact, in his brief, Ameen admits to maintaining this practice for three years, but insists he had permission to do so. Nonetheless, Ameen concedes that it was conditioned upon his making up for the extra time.6 It is 5 Ameen does not challenge the warning he received in April, although he now characterizes it as exaggerated and unusually detailed. However, he acknowledges he signed the warning and checked off the box indicating he concurred with it. 6 On appeal, Ameen puts a spin on the notion of making up the time. He claims that he was entitled to the extra time as long as he got his work done, irrespective of how long he remained at work. It was sufficient, he argues, if he made up fifteen minutes of work (not time) during the day. Yet the record does not support his factual assertion. During his deposition, Ameen -14- undisputed that Ameen did not put in additional time to make up for the extra fifteen minutes a day. There is no question then, that as the district court found, Amphenol had a legitimate basis to terminate Ameen; the paramount question, however, is whether the district court erred when it found Ameen had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext, and that Amphenol was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.