well question the district court’s decision on this score, given that Mr. Davalos was Deputy Chief of Police and that he explained he was personally aware of the Department’s practices and procedures as a result of his position. 4 . Defendants reply that they tried to apply their policy to three men seeking FMLA leave for medical purposes having nothing to do with a pregnancy. But this happened only after defendants were on notice of plaintiffs' complaints. In these circumstances, a reasonable jury could (though of course need not) view these facts as part of a post-hoc effort to cover up past discriminatory practices, or at least not informative of the Department's practices and policies prior to the filing of this lawsuit. See Plotke v. White, 405 F.3d 1092, 1103 (10th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. W.D. Sports, N.M., Inc., 497 F.3d
holding that inconsistency in employers reasons for the termination is an indication of pretext holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that plaintiff can show pretext by demonstrating that an employers proffered reason for an adverse employment action has no basis in fact holding that posthoc reasons for an adverse employment decision constitute evidence of pretext holding that termination is an adverse employment action