meeting Sheriff Cutler focused on performance problems prior to Haverda’s suspended termination; and (9) a documented history of positive performance reviews. The district court characterized Haverda’s rebuttal evidence as merely disagreeing with the assessment of his performance, as arguing that Appellees’ evidence is merely subjective, and as arguing that reliance on the Jail condition to demote him is flawed. The court went on to hold that Haverda’s offered evidence was unavailing and that Haverda had failed to rebut Appellees’ showing that they would have demoted Haverda in the absence of his protected speech. In reaching this conclusion, the district court disposition have generally done so only when the employer’s reasons have not been controverted. See Pierce, 37 F.3d at 1151 (<HOLDING>); see also Beattie, 254 F.3d at 604 (finding
holding that the plaintiff did not present evidence of retaliation and therefore the plaintiff failed to allege facts that would allow a rational jury to conclude that the employers reasons for termination were pretextual 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 plaintiff must present such evidence holding that the burden is on the plaintiff to allege facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction 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