finding; instead the government now claims that the new AD-FM job differs significantly from the MSO (and thus the prior ADA) position. But neither in its brief nor at oral argument was the government willing to describe these crucial differences. When asked, the government’s attorney repeatedly refused to answer except to refer to an ambiguous affidavit from a BOM personnel officer submitted below that equated the MSO position with the AAD position. To suggest that the district court’s finding — that the third reincarnation of the top administrative job in the Bureau is essentially the same as the earlier two — was clearly erroneous based upon such a weak showing borders on the frivolous. See Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985) (<HOLDING>). +. * * * * * We conclude that Title VII
holding that a district courts ruling may be upheld on an alternative ground supported by the record holding that a district courts factfindings must be upheld if plausible in light of the entire record holding summary judgment must be upheld if it is proper on any grounds holding that trial strategy will be reviewed by appellate courts only if the record demonstrates that action was without any plausible basis holding that a lower courts findings must be upheld if found to be plausible in light of the entire record even though the reviewing court would have weighed the evidence differently if it sat as the trier of fact