The tasks of weighing the evidence and of evaluating the credibility of witnesses belong to the jury. Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, ___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 6382033, *6 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2011); Johnson v. Diversicare Afton Oaks, LLC, 597 F.3d 673, 676 (5th Cir. Cir. 2010). --------

And, critically, the plaintiff's conduct that drew the adverse employment decision must have been 'nearly identical' to that of the proffered comparator who allegedly drew dissimilar employment decisions." Id.; see also Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, No. 11-60102, 2011 WL 6382033, at *4 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2011). However, the Fifth Circuit has also stated that the plaintiff "need only make a very minimal showing" to establish a prima facie case.

Cramer "must put forward evidence rebutting each of the nondiscriminatory reasons [NEC] articulates." Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, ___ F.3d_, 2011 WL 6382033, at *4 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2011) (quoting Wallace v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 271 F.3d 212, 220 (5th Cir. 2001)). NEC is allowed to be incorrect in its assessment of the facts it relies on to justify not selecting Cramer, but it is not allowed to have any discriminatory animus against him in making its decision.

Thus, the only documentation regarding Plaintiff's alleged poor work performance occurred after her termination - not during the two years while Plaintiff was employed with Defendant. See Laxton, 333 F.3d at 580-81; Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 2011 WL 6382033, at *6 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2011) (discussing the employer's failure to "formally document[]" any complaints and ultimately concluding that material facts were present as to whether the plaintiff had demonstrated pretext). Similarly, Defendant asserts that while Orrick was taking time off during the week of June 22, 2009, Plaintiff failed to process a customer's request for service.

Disparate treatment occurs where an employer treats one employee differently than "other 'similarly situated' employees." Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 637 (5th Cir. 2011). A proffered explanation is unworthy of credence when the plaintiff can reveal "weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies, or contradictions in the employer's proffered legitimate reasons for its action."

Finally, the Court notes that an employer's reasons, even if incorrect, can be legitimate and nondiscriminatory. A defendant is allowed to be incorrect when determining the grounds or factual basis for the adverse employment action if there is no discriminatory intent against the plaintiff when making that decision. See Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2011)(citing Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 899 (5th Cir. 2002)). As already discussed, much of Plaintiff's arguments center on Defendant's reasons being wrong or inaccurate as related to the complaints about her rude behavior and her productivity.

This evidence, when viewed as a whole and in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, casts doubt on Defendant's proffered non-discriminatory reason for discharging Plaintiff, and undermines its credibility. See Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 639 (5th Cir. 2011). "Proof that the defendant's explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive."

Mayberry v. Vought Aircraft Co., 55 F.3d 1086, 1090 (5th Cir.1995) (quoting Little v. Republic Ref. Co., 924 F.2d 93, 97 (5th Cir.1991)). 23. Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 637 (5th Cir.2011). 24. Mato v. Baldauf, 267 F.3d 444, 452 (5th Cir.2001) (quoting Deines v. Tex. Dep't of Protective & Reg. Serv., 164 F.3d 277, 281 (5th Cir.1999)).

Bourgeois alleges race discrimination and retaliation pursuant to Title VII. Courts in this Circuit apply the modified McDonnell Douglas approach in race discrimination and retaliation cases brought pursuant to Title VII. Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2011) (race discrimination) (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S. Ct. 1817, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1973); Septimus v. Univ. of Houston, 399 F.3d 601, 608 (5th Cir. 2005) (retaliation). Under this approach, Bourgeois first must make a prima facie case of discrimination/retaliation, which creates a presumption of discrimination/retaliation. Vaughn, 665 F.3d at 636. Then, MVSU must articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not renewing Bourgeois' contract.

D.E. 21-1, pp. 2-6. Setting aside the formal defects of the "affidavit" and assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff's contrary version of the events in those letters is true, Plaintiff still has not raised a disputed issue of material fact for trial. That is because the question is not whether complaints about Plaintiff's work performance were accurate but whether the Sheriff acted on their content rather than acting in a discriminatory manner. It is not actionable that an employer's decision is based on information that a jury could find to be false. Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2011) (citing Sandstad v. CB Richard Ellis, Inc., 309 F.3d 893, 899 (5th Cir. 2002); Laxton v. Gap Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 579 (5th Cir. 2003)). Guillen claims that Dispatcher, Jody Duncan, would back him up. D.E. 21-1, p. 3. Of course, anything that Guillen represents to be Jody Duncan's proposed testimony is classic hearsay and is not admissible. Fed. R. Evid. 801(c), 802.