once a non-retaliatory explanation has been articulated, [*7] the plaintiff must show that this explanation is a pretext for discrimination. To do this the employee must establish that the explanation is a lie, which permits a jury to infer that the tale has been concocted to conceal an unlawful truth. See St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S. Ct. 2742, 125 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1993).It is not enough to demonstrate that the employer was mistaken, inconsiderate, short-fused, or otherwise benighted; none of those possibilities violates federal law. See Forrester v. Rauland-Borg Corp., No. 05-4650 (7th Cir. June 29, 2006) (collecting authority); Pollard v. Rea Magnet Wire Corp., 824 F.2d 557 (7th Cir. 1987). Poor personnel management receives its comeuppance in the market rather than the courts.
Gee, I wish I had written that.
Closer to home, the California Supreme Court has articulated a similar standard:
On the other hand, if nondiscriminatory, Bechtel's true reasons need not necessarily have been wise or correct. While the objective soundness of an employer's proffered reasons supports their credibility . . . the ultimate issue is simply whether the employer acted with a motive to discriminate illegally. Thus, "legitimate" reasons . . . in this context are reasons that are facially unrelated to prohibited bias, and which, if true, would thus preclude a finding of discrimination. . . . "
Guz v. Bechtel Nat., Inc., 24 Cal. 4th 317, 358 (Cal. 2000).
DGV
