Opinion ID: 794071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Boeing's Remaining Rationales

Text: 32 Boeing offers additional rationales, but they do not appear sufficient to explain Tomasso's layoff. Even if a rational factfinder would have to conclude that these rationales played some role in Tomasso's layoff, the factfinder would not have to conclude that they provide a sufficient explanation. See White v. Columbus Met. Hous. Auth., 429 F.3d 232, 245 (6th Cir. 2005) (stating that a plaintiff may show pretext by showing that the proffered reason was insufficient to warrant the challenged conduct.); Holmes v. Potter, 384 F.3d 356, 361 (7th Cir.2004) ([P]retext. . . may be proved by showing . . . that the stated reason is insufficient to warrant the adverse action.) (citation omitted). 33 As Boeing appears to concede, two of the remaining rationales may explain two of Tomasso's low scores, but not the other seven. First, Wood testified in his deposition that Tomasso received a score of two for organizational skills because Tomasso did not maintain complete folders on his suppliers. 6 Second, Wood stated that Tomasso received a score of one for communications in part because he was difficult to reach while working onsite at his primary supplier and because of poor attendance at weekly meetings. 7 34 Even if we assume that these rationales adequately explain Tomasso's low scores for organizational skills and communications, a rational factfinder could conclude that they are insufficient to explain Tomasso's low overall score. Although Tomasso received a perfect score of five in technical competence, he received a score of two in quality of work, quantity of work, leadership, and attitude. These low scores remain unexplained. If Tomasso had received higher scores in these or other areas, he would have been ranked high enough to avoid being laid off. Because Tomasso need not demonstrate that Boeing's entire bagful of reasons is pretextual, Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 764 n. 7, especially where a rational factfinder could conclude that the reasons in question are insufficient, Wood's concerns about Tomasso's supplier folders and meeting attendance do not provide an adequate basis for a grant of summary judgment. 35 Wood also stated in his deposition that Tomasso had become less involved with suppliers who provided dynamic components to Boeing, even though Tomasso's greatest expertise lay in this area. However, Wood raised this issue in response to a deposition question about whether Tomasso's high level of technical competence might outweigh his alleged deficiencies in other areas. Thus, Wood did not appear to cite Tomasso's decreased involvement in his area of expertise as an independent reason for his low score. A rational factfinder could conclude that this reason did not sufficiently explain Tomasso's layoff. 8