its employment decision, the presumption of discrimination created by establishment of the prima facie case is dispelled, and the plaintiff must prove that the employer’s proffered reason or reasons were pretextual — that is, that they are false and that the real reason for the employment decision was discriminatory. Waldron v. SL Indus., Inc., 56 F.3d 491, 494 (3d Cir.1995). At the summary judgment stage, plaintiffs evidence rebutting the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons must allow a factfinder reasonably to infer that each of the employer’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons was either a post hoc fabrication or otherwise did not actually motivate the employment action. Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 764-65 (3d Cir.1994); see also Kelly, 285 N.J.Super. at 431, 667 A.2d 855 (<HOLDING>). If a plaintiff who has established a prima
holding that the conflicting explanations given by defendants agents for the plaintiffs termination were also sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that defendants proffered reasons for the termination were pretextual the inconsistent testimony  regarding the motivating reasons for plaintiffs termination cast doubts on the asserted nondiscriminatory legitimate reasons and may alone  be sufficient to preclude summary judgment on plaintiffs claim holding that in producing nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged action the employer is not obligated to support these reasons with objective evidence sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard holding that plaintiff need only point to sufficient evidence to support an inference that the employer did not act for its proffered nondiscriminatory reasons holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext was insufficient because the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the employer did not honestly believe its proffered reasons for its action holding that a plaintiff may satisfy his burden by demonstrating such weaknesses implausibilities inconsistencies incoherencies or contradictions in the employers proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted nondiscriminatory reasons