Does the honest belief defense violate the axiomatic law of summary judgment requiring the evidence and inferences to be viewed in favor of the non-moving party, without weighing the evidence or assessing credibility?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Employers accused of discrimination often invoke the court-created honest belief defense under the McDonnell Douglas test when seeking summary judgment. This defense allows an employer to obtain summary judgment by proffering a false reason for taking adverse action against an employee. In the Tenth Circuit, if the court finds the employer’s view of the evidence is plausible, then summary judgment is granted, even if the reason proffered by the employer is genuinely disputed. 1. Does the honest belief defense violate the axiomatic law of summary judgment requiring the evidence and inferences to be viewed in favor of the non-moving party, without weighing the evidence or assessing credibility? 2. Ifthis Court permits the defense to exist, then when an employer makes an honest belief argument in moving for summary judgment, must Courts view the evidence objectively in favor of the non-moving party, or may Courts view the evidence subjectively from the moving party’s perspective? 8. Does the disarray in the Circuits over what the honest belief defense is, and how to apply it, require this Court to discard the defense thereby restoring the integrity of the McDonnell Douglas test and Rule 56? ii PARTIES Petitioner Ron Rutledge (“Rutledge”) was the plaintiff and appellant in the proceedings below. Respondent, the Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas (“County”) was the defendant and appellee in the proceedings below.