and the adverse action. Charlton v. Paramus Bd. of Edue., 25 F.3d 194, 201 (3d Cir.1994). Once a prima facie case is presented, the burden of production shifts to the employer to articulate a non-retaliatory explanation for the challenged employment decision. Woodson v. Scott Paper Co., 109 F.3d 913, 920 n. 2 (3d Cir. 1997). If a non-retaliatory reason is proffered, it is then the plaintiffs burden to prove that the employer’s articulated reason is a pretext and that retaliation was the true motive. Id. “To survive a motion for summary judgment in the employer’s favor, a plaintiff must produce some evidence from which a jury could reasonably reach these conclusions.” Moore, 461 F.3d at 342 (citing Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759, 764 (3d Cir.1994)); see also Fuentes, 32 F.3d at 765 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis in
holding that the district court erred in failing to consider all of the employers proffered evidence of legitimate business reasons for the plaintiffs termination holding that plaintiff need only point to sufficient evidence to support an inference that the employer did not act for its proffered nondiscriminatory reasons holding that a plaintiff may satisfy his burden by demonstrating such weaknesses implausibilities inconsistencies incoherencies or contradictions in the employers proffered legitimate reasons for its action that a reasonable factfinder could rationally find them unworthy of credence and hence infer that the employer did not act for the asserted nondiscriminatory reasons 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 holding that in producing nondiscriminatory reasons for its challenged action the employer is not obligated to support these reasons with objective evidence sufficient to satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard