“ ‘may take a variety of forms,’ ” including evidence tending to show “ ‘that the defendant’s stated reason for the adverse employment action was false.’ ” Id. (quoting Kendrick v. Penske Transp. Servs., Inc., 220 F.3d 1220, 1230 (10th Cir.2000) (further quotation omitted)). “The plaintiffs evidence can also allow for an inference that the employer’s proffered non-discriminatory reasons were either a post hoc fabrication or otherwise did not actually motivate the employment action....” Id. at 1102-03 (quotation and alteration omitted). A. Ms. Ramsey first argues that the district court failed to recognize that LCMC’s reasons for the termination have shifted over time, which is evidence tending to show pretext. See Whittington v. Nordam Group Inc., 429 F.3d 986, 994 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Plotke, 405 F.3d at 1104 (holding
holding that a reasonable jury could find pretext for a termination where the plaintiff stated that her work was satisfactory and there was no indication that the plaintiffs statement was either incredible or fanciful 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 inconsistency in employers reasons for the termination is an indication of pretext holding that posthoc reasons for an adverse employment decision constitute evidence of pretext holding that a plaintiff can establish pretext only by showing that her employers explanation is a he