that a reasonable employer would have found the plaintiff to be significantly better qualified for the job, but this employer did not, the factfinder can legitimately infer that the employer consciously selected a less-qualified candidate — something that employers do not usually do, unless some other strong consideration, such as discrimination, enters into the picture.” 156 F.3d at 1294. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has reached a similar conclusion, recognizing that “facts may exist from which a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer’s ‘business decision’ was so lacking in merit as to call into question its genuineness.” Dister v. Cont’l Group, Inc., 859 F.2d 1108, 1116 (2d Cir.1988); see also Ryther v. KARE 11, 108 F.3d 832, 840 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1012 n.
holding that factfinder was allowed to consider whether the basis purportedly relied upon by defendant in its decision to fire plaintiff was actually a sound  as opposed to pretextual  basis upon which to make employment decisions holding that damage to building and personal property as a result of fire negligently caused by defendant was to be measured by reasonable cash market value of the property at the time it was destroyed by the fire or if it was not totally destroyed by the diminution in its fair market value before and after the fire holding that the district court must make findings on the record as to the basis for its conclusion about the amount of actual loss holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision holding an allegation sufficient under rule 9b that the plan and the participants acting on behalf of the plan relied upon and are presumed to have relied upon defendants representations and nondisclosures to their detriment