Opinion ID: 2754383
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inconsistent Explanations

Text: Second, Hamilton insists that AVPM submitted inconsistent explanations for terminating her, and that the district court erred in finding no evidence of pretext in this inconsistency. At various points, AVPM gave three reasons for firing Hamilton: (1) inaccuracy in listing apartments as 25 Richardson v. Monitronics Int’l, Inc., 434 F.3d 327, 336 (5th Cir. 2005). 26 Turner v. Baylor Richardson Med. Ctr., 476 F.3d 337, 346 (5th Cir. 2007). 27 Id. (quoting Upshaw v. Dall. Heart Grp., 961 F. Supp. 997, 1002 (N.D. Tex. 1997)). 28 We also note in passing that Hamilton admits to at least one instance of inaccurate recordkeeping, and Englard discovered several additional errors while she was on vacation. Thus, even though AVPM may not have officially documented its dissatisfaction with Hamilton, the record supports its proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging her. 11 Case: 14-10373 Document: 00512845401 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/21/2014 No. 14-10373 “ready,” (2) inability to do the job, and (3) lack of trust to do the job. Although Hamilton is correct that inconsistency could suggest pretext, 29 no such inconsistency exists here. The district court aptly characterized these explanations as different only as to their level of generality. At the highest level, AVPM did not trust Hamilton to do the job of property manager. On a lower level, Englard distrusted her because he believed that she was unable to do the job correctly. And at the lowest level of generality, the reason he thought her incapable was her failure to keep accurate “ready” and “make ready” lists. There is no inconsistency, and thus no evidence of pretext, in AVPM’s proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Hamilton.