We disagree and conclude that, as with the discrimination claim, the district court failed to view the evidence of pretext in its totality and failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Avila. We need not repeat all of the evidence of pretext set forth above. Focusing just on the post-grievance September 9, 2003, warning letter and the September 11, 2003, termination letter, there is evidence in the record of weaknesses, implausibilities and inconsistencies in the proffered reason. First, the September 9, 2003, warning regarding an unnamed employee’s complaint that Mr. Avila was not working hard enough is based on vague information and subjective criteria. See Simms v. Okla. ex rel. Dep’t of Mental Health & Substance Abuse Sens., 165 F.3d 1321, 1328 (10th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Second, as to the September 11, 2003,
holding that evidence of pretext may include disturbing procedural irregularities holding that a plaintiff may rely on the same evidence to prove both pretext and discrimination holding that evidence of pretext may include the use of subjective criteria holding that the two instances may include the charged conduct holding that even if the plaintiff had produced evidence of pretext  the evidence did not tend to establish a discriminatory purpose