Opinion ID: 204037
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Ambiguous Company Policy

Text: Although Thermo King argues that Vélez's admitted acceptance of gifts from suppliers was a clear violation of Thermo King's company policy, the record permits a contrary finding. A rational jury could conclude that Vélez's admitted acceptance of pens, caps, and simple knives was by no means a clear violation of Thermo King's Code of Conduct, which reads in relevant part: Relationships with customers, vendors, and suppliers: ... If you are offered or receive any substantial gift or favor, it should not be accepted and your supervisor should be notified. This guideline does not apply to items of small value commonly exchanged in business relationships, but even in this case, discretion and common sense should be your guide. (Emphasis added.) By its terms, this provision does not apply to items of small value or even to selling gifted items. To be sure, a company is ordinarily in the best position to assess the meaning of its own Code of Conduct. We are not suggesting otherwise. Cf. Arroyo-Audifred, 527 F.3d at 221 ([C]ourts in employment discrimination cases may not act as `super personnel departments,' substituting judicial judgments for the business judgments of employers.). Nonetheless, in light of the shifting explanations given for Veléz's dismissal, the inescapable ambiguity about whether the Code of Conduct even precludes Vélez's admitted behavior in accepting and selling the small value gifts adds to the suspicion that the company's reliance on the policy may be pretextual. See Santiago-Ramos, 217 F.3d at 56 (a plaintiff can also establish pretext by showing weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons such that a factfinder could infer that the employer did not act for the asserted non-discriminatory reasons.) (quotation marks and citation omitted). [4]