he allegedly failed to complete. Id. at 29. He also states that he and his supervisor agreed that he need not complete a particular assignment. Id. at 30. Drawing all justifiable inferences in the plaintiffs favor, the plaintiff implies that the defendant’s proffered legitimate reason for lowering his 2000 performance rating is untruthful. The plaintiff, therefore, has presented a legitimate challenge to the defendant’s proffered explanation. Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C.Cir.1996) (citing a Seventh Circuit case concluding that a plaintiff wishing to rebut the employer defendant’s proffered legitimate reason for the adverse action must show “that the explanation given is a phony reason”); see also George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 414 (D.C.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). The court therefore denies the defendant’s
holding that a jury could find employers proffered reason for termination pretext when plaintiff presented evidence that she had not violated company policy or was authorized to deviate from stated policy and employer never discussed alleged violations with her holding that a reasonable jury could find pretext for a termination where the plaintiff stated that her work was satisfactory and there was no indication that the plaintiffs statement was either incredible or fanciful holding that to determine whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee the court examines if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employers stated reason for the firing is pretext holding that inconsistency in employers reasons for the termination is an indication of pretext holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable