unsupported by the record.” The plaintiffs’ contention that HHC failed to meet its production burden lacks merit because HHC produced evidence sufficient for a trier of fact to conclude that Allen and Slone were fired for “giving out unauthorized or confidential information about patients,” which is explicitly prohibited by the Hospital’s em ployee manual. That Allen and Slone believe this proffered reason to be “patently false” does not lead to the conclusion that the Hospital failed to meet its production burden. See Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (“The defendant need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons.”); Tinker v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 127 F.3d 519, 523 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Rather, the plaintiffs’ argument on this
holding that former employer met its burden of proof that ubc exception applied holding that a company exercising substantial control of the terms and conditions of the work of the employees is an employer under the flsa holding employer satisfied its burden of production holding that the employer met its production burden by alleging that tinkers termination was the result of his violation of company policy on the preparation of work orders holding that section 523a2c shifts the burden of production and not the burden of proof on the issue of intent only