the area of Professional Responsibilities, which assessed whether “[t]he appraisee has performed building responsibilities.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Birchette Dep., Ex. 11. Thus, if it is accurate that director Birchette’s basis for terminating Ms. Smith was her poor attendance and her failure to attend planning meetings, it seems odd that this did not affect the ratings she awarded Ms. Smith on her evaluation form and that she did not indicate a problem with these areas on plaintiffs CLDF form. The Court concludes that director Birchette’s varying, and what a jury could find inconsistent justifications for terminating Ms. Smith, raises a genuine issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. See, e.g., Abramson v. William Paterson College of New Jersey, 260 F.3d 265, 285 (3rd Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Starks v. George Court Co., 937 F.2d 311, 315
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 there were genuine issues of material fact and reversing the district courts grant of summary judgment because in part the everchanging nature of the proffered reasons given for plaintiffs termination could be viewed as evidence tending to show pretext   holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate