failed to notice an entire run of 904 books was scratched. Mr. Avila then has the burden of demonstrating that this proffered explanation is a pretext for retaliation. Fye, 516 F.3d at 1228. The district court ruled that, as with Mr. Avila’s claim of discrimination, he failed to demonstrate pretext for his retaliation clai that led to the termination, Mr. Avila presented evidence that if an entire run of books was scratched, it was Jostens’ usual practice to blame the line’s operator or all of the involved employees, not the boxer; that no other worker on that line, including Mr. Scott, who was doing the same job on the same machine that day, was disciplined for the scratched books; and that it was Mr. Keeffe’s routine practice to authorize the shipment of books with scratches. See id. (<HOLDING>). Finally, it is noteworthy that, immediately
holding that evidence of pretext may include the use of subjective criteria holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination holding that even if the plaintiff had produced evidence of pretext  the evidence did not tend to establish a discriminatory purpose holding that posthoc reasons for an adverse employment decision constitute evidence of pretext holding that evidence of pretext may include disturbing procedural irregularities