does outline a system of escalating actions to address an employment deficiency, but it also reiterates, at the outset of the description of the policy, that employment is “at will” and that defendant “may use progressive discipline at its discretion.” On the other hand, the handbook in Barros, 710 A.2d at 686, did not grant discretion to the employer when pursuing employment termination. Even if defendant had the benefit of a larger paper trail detailing plaintiffs alleged performance deficiencies and if, as a result, defendant had made use of the progressive-discipline policy, its failure to do so does not constitute pretext when implementation of the policy is discretionary and plaintiff is an at-will employee. Cf. Morris v. City of Chillicothe, 512 F.3d 1013, 1020 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); Timmerman v. U.S. Bank, N.A., 483 F.3d 1106,
holding no pretext for not following progressive discipline where policy contemplated immediate termination for certain offenses holding that the statement in the employers progressive discipline policy that in situations where employee behavior warrants immediate termination the stages of this process do not need to be followed granted the employer unbounded discretion to discharge employees without following the guidelines holding a unilaterally issued employer policy created an enforceable right for atwill employees holding failure to follow progressive discipline policy does not constitute pretext when employer reserves right to fire atwill employees without notice holding failure to follow progressive discipline does not demonstrate pretext when use of the policy is entirely discretionary