that rely heavily on subjective considerations with caution. Particularly in cases where a jury could reasonably find that the plaintiff was otherwise significantly better qualified than the successful applicant, an employer’s asserted strong reliance on subje hette has offered conflicting reasons for plaintiffs termination and the fact that plaintiff and Ms. Kay had received identical overall performance ratings for the school year immediately prior to the year when the RIF decisions were made, is evidence that could further support an inference that Ms. Smith’s termination was the result of age animus, if indeed it can be proven that director Birchette was responsible for designating one of the social studies teacher positions for elimination. See, e.g., Ferguson, 225 F.Supp.2d at 41 (<HOLDING>). In sum, the Court concludes that although,
holding there were no grounds for challenging in a termination proceeding the alleged failure to comply with the ada in the provision of services because services are not required by the termination statute holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable holding requirement in contract to provide notice for termination but not limiting reasons for termination constitutes atwill employment relationship holding that the numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of the persons primarily responsible for plaintiffs termination when coupled with the timing of plaintiffs termination and the conflicting reasons given by defendants agents for the termination might well persuade a jury that defendant fired the plaintiff in retaliation for  the letter sent by her attorney to defendants general counsel holding that the conflicting explanations given by defendants agents for the plaintiffs termination were also sufficient to raise a reasonable inference that defendants proffered reasons for the termination were pretextual the inconsistent testimony  regarding the motivating reasons for plaintiffs termination cast doubts on the asserted nondiscriminatory legitimate reasons and may alone  be sufficient to preclude summary judgment on plaintiffs claim