Court Opinion

ID: 9494265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:33:21.123677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:18.829960
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
Assuming, as the court does, that McConnell was disabled, I believe that McConnell has created a material issue of fact as to pretext. The reasons Pioneer gave for firing him were (with some variation) that he did not communicate with other Pioneer employees normally, that he sent his sales representatives inappropriate motivational material, and that he did not coach his sales representatives. McConnell presented affidavits from other Pioneer employees that contradict those assertions. Four men who had worked as sales representatives for McConnell stated that his coaching was fine, that they appreciated the motivational materials he sent, and that his personal style was “seldom, if ever, abrasive.” A former field sales manager who supervised McConnell stated that McConnell handled his duties very well. One of the key incidents cited by Michael Davis, Pioneer’s area sales manager, to justify the firing was a meeting in which McConnell ridiculed another Pioneer employee. That very same employee described McConnell in his deposition as “one of the most admirable, dedicated individuals that I’ve ever encountered in my lifetime, and going back to those influential people that I was exposed to in my college or athletic career. Very motivational with good qualities, not intimidating or dominating qualities.”
This is evidence that the reasons Pioneer gave for firing McConnell were not only false, but contrived. I believe this case falls within the broad pattern of cases in which a jury could infer that the use of a pretext proves the fact of discrimination. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2109, 2112, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (Opinion of the Court and Ginsburg, J., concurring). This is simply not the kind of case that should be disposed of by summary judgment.
Therefore, I respectfully dissent.