Opinion ID: 170494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Inconsistent Reasons

Text: As evidence that the defendants’ reasons are pretextual, Mr. Matthews asserts that Ms. Biehl and Ms. Long gave “various and changing explanations” for -7- his termination. We have indicated that a post-hoc justification given at the time of trial, which differs from the reasons given at the time of termination and is unsupported by the evidence, could lead a reasonable jury to infer that the reason asserted at trial is pretextual. See Tyler v. RE/MAX Mountain States, Inc., 232 F.3d 808, 813 n.6 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing Perfetti v. First Nat’l Bank, 950 F.2d 449, 456 (7th Cir. 1991)); see also Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092, 1104 (10th Cir. 2005) (holding that conflicting and changing evidence concerning the timing and reasons for termination contributes to a showing of pretext). On the other hand, there is no support for a finding of pretext if the employer does not give inconsistent reasons, but instead merely elaborates on the initial justification for termination. See Standard v. A.B.E.L. Servs., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318, 1332 (11th Cir. 1998) (noting that later elaboration on more general reasons for termination is insufficient to show pretext); Perfetti, 950 F.2d at 456 (same). In this case, Mr. Matthews argues that the reasons the defendants provided in an interrogatory response are inconsistent with those Ms. Biehl initially gave at his termination meeting and that this inconsistency demonstrates pretext. He claims that, during his termination meeting, Ms. Biehl told him he was being let go because he had problems multi-tasking and cutting off terminals, but in response to an interrogatory, the defendants stated: Plaintiff had difficulty multi-tasking and preferred to work on one project at a time; Plaintiff failed to complete credit checks in a proper and timely manner, and had difficulty keeping up with NSF ACH’s, -8- follow-ups and answering and returning phone calls, and worked at a slow pace; Plaintiff worked on tasks he wanted to do (such as file labels) rather than tasks assigned to him; Plaintiff made excessive personal telephone calls; Plaintiff took excessive breaks and his attendance was unreliable; Plaintiff spent an excessive amount of time talking to others instead of working; Plaintiff failed to file documents appropriately; Plaintiff did not accept and act upon counseling. 3 Because these asserted deficiencies do not, as Mr. Matthews argues, differ from the more general, earlier justifications of inability to “multi-task” and failure to “cut off terminals,” 4 they do not demonstrate that the defendants’ proffered reasons are so “weak, implausible, inconsistent, incoherent, or contradictory” such that a rational jury could find them unworthy of belief. All the perceived deficiencies—for example, working on administrative tasks, excessive socializing and breaks, and poor attendance—support Ms. Biehl’s claim that Mr. Matthews had trouble multi-tasking and was not cutting off customers’ terminals in a timely manner. They do not provide different reasons for his termination, but merely elaborate on the initial explanation. That is, they provide examples of Mr. Matthews’s inability to multi-task and demonstrate precisely why he was not adequately performing his job duties. 3 Ms. Biehl testified that, in deciding whether to terminate Mr. Matthews, she considered all these deficiencies except for “failed to file documents” because she was not aware of this deficiency until after he was terminated. 4 While the interrogatory response did not expressly mention failure to shut down terminals, it stated that Mr. Matthews “had difficulty keeping up with NSF [insufficient funds] ACHs,” and the District Court correctly noted that shutting down terminals was one of Mr. Matthews’s primary responsibilities in relation to the “NSF ACH process.” -9- Mr. Matthews also argues that the defendants provided inconsistent reasons because during the termination meeting Ms. Long allegedly told him that he was terminated due to “cut-backs” rather than his performance. It is undisputed, however, that Ms. Biehl—not Ms. Long—made the decision to terminate Mr. Matthews. Thus, it is irrelevant whether Ms. Long gave Mr. Matthews a reason for his termination that is inconsistent with Ms. Biehl’s rationale. 5