countered that inference by arguing that it is “premised upon an [sic] twisted interpretation of the CBA and underlying documents unsupported by the language of said documents.” PL’s Opp’n at 9. As discussed earlier, the parties dispute whether Grove Hall was its own section for purposes of employment decisions. Therefore, Anderson has raised an issue of fact regarding Potter’s justification. While Anderson may have raised an issue of fact as to whether Potter’s justification is pretext, Anderson has not provided evidence to show that the failure to open up bidding for the Grove Hall Lead Clerk position to employees in other substations was a pretext for discrimination as required in the First Circuit. See, e.g., Sabinson v. Trustees of Dartmouth College, 542 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). At most, Anderson has established a
holding that even if the plaintiff had produced evidence of pretext  the evidence did not tend to establish a discriminatory purpose holding that the plaintiff had failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish constructive notice because the plaintiff did not present any evidence to establish that the oil was on the floor for any length of time holding that plaintiff failed to establish pretext where plaintiff was terminated after the employer conducted an investigation into a subordinates allegations of misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and believed the allegations to be true even though plaintiff presented evidence in the lawsuit that the allegations may have been false holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination 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