facts relating to the pretextuality of the defendant’s action remain in dispute, summary judgment is appropriate.” Hooks v. Diamond Crystal Specialty Foods, Inc., 997 F.2d 793, 798 (10th Cir.1993), overruled in part on other grounds, Buchanan v. Sherrill, 51 F.3d 227, 229 (10th Cir.1995). In a RIF case, a plaintiff can demonstrate pretext in three principal ways. Beaird, 145 F.3d at 1168. First, she can argue that her own termination does not accord with the RIF criteria supposedly employed. Here, no showing is made that Colgate deviated from its RIF formula, or that Myers would have been retained had the employer’s RIF formula been followed. This kind of evidence can in some cases suffice to substantiate pretext. See Christie v. Foremost Ins. Co., 785 F.2d 584, 586-87 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). But minor inconsistencies in the application
holding that defendants failure to comply with its own rif policy allowed jury to conclude rif was pretextual holding that dismissal for failure to comply with discovery orders is on the merits holding failure to comply with  851b was harmless error in part because defendant did not comply with  851c procedures for challenging prior convictions holding that a common law breach of contract action will lie for the insurers failure to comply with its obligation to act in good faith and with due care in representing the interests of the insured in its failure to settle with a third party holding the failure to comply with the act does not bar defendant from raising a constitutional challenge to jury selection procedures