context: Ms. Ramsey first argues that the district court failed to recognize that LCMC's reasons for the termination have shifted over time, which is evidence tending to show pretext.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 429 F.3d 986, 994
citation_a.parenthetical: holding that inconsistency in employer's reasons for the termination is an indication of pretext
citation_a.sentence: See Whittington v. Nordam Group Inc., 429 F.3d 986, 994 (10th Cir.2005) (holding that inconsistency in employer’s reasons for the termination is an indication of pretext); see also Plotke, 405 F.3d at 1104 (holding that conflicting and changing evidence concerning the timing and reasons for termination contributes to a showing of pretext). Ms. Ramsey points out that Mr. Mahoney initially told her that her department was being restructured.
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 405 F.3d 1104, 1104
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that conflicting and changing evidence concerning the timing and reasons for termination contributes to a showing of pretext
citation_b.sentence: See Whittington v. Nordam Group Inc., 429 F.3d 986, 994 (10th Cir.2005) (holding that inconsistency in employer’s reasons for the termination is an indication of pretext); see also Plotke, 405 F.3d at 1104 (holding that conflicting and changing evidence concerning the timing and reasons for termination contributes to a showing of pretext). Ms. Ramsey points out that Mr. Mahoney initially told her that her department was being restructured.