Did the district Court err in not acknowledging evidence presented by petitioner to demonstrate satisfactory job performance, through outstanding job performance evaluations

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | Did the district Court ZRR IN Not GCcKNowledging Evidence. presented by petitioner to cemonstaate Satisfactory Joo Performance, thRougy outstandin Job performance evaluations Haynes v. Waste Connections Did the disteict 2a iN Not RECON ZING. petitionen Received bonuses GuRing the Relevant Fime period he WAS CONSideRed fo be Not Performing his jobsati shad, At the time Rowan Helping Ministries fred him o Haynes V. Waste Connections , Burlington Tndustees v. clleah Did tne district Court pagperly SxeReise it discretion IN GRANTING Summary judgment ¢ | pretext, ane Showed Hhatomplajels SESH Hone Shaw e Ministries proffered NON = GISCRI MINER REASONS othe +ERMINATION ORE IACQNSISIEN UCR time, tolse OR based on mistakes ot fact. LT the petitioner does sd, then Surnmary peedguient Showd be denied and the case should pRoceed OtRAl. Haynes v, Waste Connections Srould the distaict Coum Should have a Kvowledge h iN INISTRI@S CAME UP wi Sheen tp cf Claims t terminated pet fioners ampoyelt Not geth Na ALONG with coworkers, wal performing job Wel | “LN WEICOME BHENTION TO COWOR Re Theonly REASON GIVEN qt the hme et petitioners termi Nation however, WAS TARCINESS FURTHER, the, company, Policy oN tardiness after so many days States it Shatle be 0, SASPENSION ma three days before feRMination j Which this Profocol Never happened. Haunes v. Wasle | CONNEc+tI ONS, } Dd mm d ; n QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Dy e district Co <> it 7 CiscRetion In the al Propealy exeacse ts 2 Petitioner Submitte deuce OU foment Phaseswhen Charlotte Pikett $ext ne, Fone GP PRU! SoR, MORNING, AND Not Cons de My al 3AM, iN the INAPPROPRIAE Cheistne Mek N RaRAss ment oR Nashoille Banner Pub shinig Company. Nan ates V Da the ch strict Court OVE Rloo False Statements of “acloome artent thet the , towrad coworkersedid not come aber ton Gy Petifiones ae Repoerted Superoi SOR Chadotte DN kent etter harassm ent Severa | +imes to hee S © Sheegy Smith, dizeche ot clrest SOR even tual | let SUpeeulSoQ Chaol HSPs tHe Me, Carrethes Vv, Speee, Sauer VP SSPNS IRE I9q3 v PAUERS V, Salt Lak County iF Was the district Cust IN ERR Uhen Ut geanted Supra ducignien alter PRACT FroneR Peeve that a white empbuce Vickre RN got mad attywe other emplowes ANd wa! ot+ Wo b ond ata UJh ich Shoulel have been grounds Qo ~tegm) NATION bat conti Nued fe wook tere fuse Year® aflee fe HoNeR was eam ste fora muh less Suppase; IN AGCHION. ? Hawes V, Waste Connect ion