WPC#= \eɹ𝣖 X+K- SϦwruW͵Iߣl[< w4pE΂/SnHj >jxmaOS+p*:hsFAzԩq:m!#_[gy,qygBe9y4G+̢.-6ֈ)FE 뫃P.--= ޞRET+Z=xqiVzI '}v(.xx-f!z?,&ٶ9%Th^N _B%^Nb#\ % 0# 0 U#N 0 0 z 4 0 0 0 0N 0Ny 0{ 0QE- 0/ 0 0 0 0 0N 0 0 0 0~ 0V 0+ 0 0! 0" 0a# 0'$ 0<$U>&% 0d% 0 &H&^ 'b(w (4 (!(0( m2(I( 0D+b+<#._/%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7%7 0 8 8 8 8 B 9 9 0(9 D39 D-9 0K,:,: ASw:: 0; 0D4< Ax<HP LaserJet 4Si,,,,,,02G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  ӁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 522+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para\  `&Times New Roman0;;.footer   !XXX   !XXX({2 ?$ !.8,dd8      > + ?)   _ @ XkX)XkXXXk* @ ! !X!)XkXX)Xk   @ *  Q*ज) - -9?(씤3|x U  R$      3    _)Apparently,thiswasnotthefirsttimeanincorrectIAhadbeenpreparedinWilliamscase.Severalyears  priortotheincidentjustdescribed,anotheremployeehadpreparedanincorrectIA,and_Gard_Ԁhadsignedit.TheIAwas x preparedbyKarinWare,whowasanewemployeeatthetime,inrelianceonawrittenagreementbetweenWilliams @ andherexhusbandthatwasincludedintheWilliamsfilebutnotfiledwiththecourt.#)~#(#$  0    R$      4    _)Welchsconclusionthatthedirectorieswereintentionallydeletedisbasedonthefollowingfacts:(1)the  directoriesweremovedbeforetheirdeletions;(2)thesystemutilizesa promptwhichrequirestheusertoconfirmhis x orherintenttodeletethematerialinquestion;and(3)deletedmaterialnormallyisretainedina recyclebin,butin @ thisinstancethedirectorieshadbeendeletedfromtherecyclebinaswell.#)~# 2 R$      1    _Ingeneral,IntakeSpecialiststaketelephonecallsfromclientsaboutcases,opennewcases,andput  informationaboutnewcasesintoPSIscomputersystem.  R$      5    _)Thisanalyticalframeworkappliestotheinstantappealdespitethefactthat McDonnellDouglas and _Burdine_   wereactionsbroughtpursuanttoTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964,whichisnowcodifiedat42U.S.C.2000e x etseq.Versasclaims,asfarastheyarerelevanttotheinstantappeal,werebroughtunderT.C.A.421401(1998), @ whichispartoftheTennesseeHumanRightsAct,see_T.C.A._Ԁ421101etseq.( _THRA_),and42U.S.C.1981 X (1994).T.C.A.421101(a)(1)providesthatthepurposeofthe_THRA_Ԁisto [_p]rovide_ԀforexecutionwithinTennessee   ofthepoliciesembodiedinthefederalCivilRightsActsof1964,1968and19728.OurSupremeCourthas  accordinglyreliedonTitleVIIcaselawtoresolvequestionsbroughtunderthe_THRA_.See,e.g., Campbellv.Florida `  SteelCorp. ,919S.W.2d26,31(Tenn.1996).Similarly,theSixthCircuithasheldthatclaimsbroughtunder42U.S.C. ( x 1981aresubjecttothesameanalyticalframeworkasareTitleVIIclaims.See _Hollins_Ԁv.AtlanticCo. ,188F.3d652,  @ 658(6thCir.1999).Therefore,theanalyticalframeworkenunciatedin McDonnellDouglas and _Burdine_ appliesto    Versasclaimsatissueonthisappeal.#)~# R$      2    _OrderSpecialistsattendcourtsessionswithPSIsstaffattorneysandprepareappropriateordersforthecourt.(|G2$ !.8,dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8,dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8,dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8,dd8     _  ,8kXXdd8  @ ,INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @WW$ATKNOXVILLE#, #Ԉ ,   June2000Session X XkX, #,XXk#DARLENEVERSAv.POLICYSTUDIES,INC.XkX,   ` @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtfor_McMinn_ԀCounty  h @@No.22458LawrenceH._Puckett_,Judge  X FILEDAUGUST25,_2000_  8  @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.E200000030_COA_ԄR3CV '  AV) ` dE<` A      #,XXke#XkX,)XkXXXkTheplaintiff,anAfricanAmericanfemale,broughtthisemploymentdiscriminationactionagainst  heremployer,PolicyStudies,Inc.Theemployerfiledamotionforsummaryjudgmentwith  supportingmaterial.Thetrialcourtgrantedthemotion,findingthattheplaintiffhadfailedto  demonstratethattherewasagenuineissueofmaterialfactonthequestionofwhethertheemployer  hadalegitimatenondiscriminatoryreasonforterminatingher.#XkXX)XkE##,XXk&#XkX,ԀWeaffirm. v  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourt V Affirmed;CaseRemanded  F   #,Xk#XkX.,CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichHoustonM.Goddard, &v P.J.,andHerschelP.Franks,J.,joined. f KennethO.Fritz,Chattanooga,Tennessee,fortheappellant,DarleneVersa. F DavidF._Harrod_,Athens,Tennessee;AndrewW._Loewi_Ԁand_Jeanine_ԀM.Anderson,Denver, & Colorado,fortheappelleePolicyStudies,Inc.    OPINION #,XXk# "! XkX,    I. $#    )XkXXXk,Thedefendant,PolicyStudies,Inc.,doingbusinessasChildSupportServicesofTennessee f&!% ( PSI),provideschildsupportenforcementservicestotheStateofTennesseein_McMinn_Ԁand V'"& Monroecounties.PSIhiredtheplaintiff,DarleneVersa,toworkasanIntakeSpecialist7 5#  1      ׀inPSIs F(#'  Athens,Tennessee,office.VersawashiredbyPamelaS._Gard_,theAthensOfficeProgram 6)$( Manager,upontherecommendationofJudyWilliams,aPSIOrderSpecialist.9 5#  2      ׀PSIwashandling   anactivechildsupportcaseonbehalfofWilliamsatthetime.PSIinstructedWilliamsnotto  involveherselfinherowncaseandinstructedotherstaffmembersthattheywerenottogive  Williamscaseanyspecialtreatment.    DuringVersastenureasaPSIemployee,shereceivedseveralcommendationsand `  promotions.InearlyJanuary,1998,_Gard_ԀwasnotifiedofaproblemwithWilliamscase.She P  investigatedandlearnedthattheemployerofWilliamsexhusbandhadcalledPSIseeking @  clarificationofarecentlytransmittedIncomeAssessmentOrder( IA).Versa,whohadtakenthe 0  call,relayedthemessagetoKimBernard.Uponreturningthecall,Bernardlearnedthatthe  p  employerhadreceivedanIAthatdidnotcorrespondwiththeIAthatBernardherselfhadprepared.4X 5#  3      ׀ `  BernardaskedtheemployertofaxheracopyoftheIAithadreceived.TheIAfaxedtohercalled P  forawithholdingof$210permonthplusa$15.75paymentonanarrearage,whiletheIAthat @  Bernardhadpreparedcalledforawithholdingof$105permonthanddidnotincludeanarrearage. 0  Bernardtheninformed_Gard_ԀofherconclusionthatherIAhadbeeninterceptedandanother   substitutedinitsplaceandsenttotheemployer.    OnJanuary7,1998,_Gard_ԀquestionedWilliams.Initially,Williamsstatedthatsheknewan  incorrectIAhadbeensenttoherformerhusbandsemployerbutthatshedidnotsendit.Upon  beingaskedwhowasinvolved,shesaid, Well,IlljustsaythatIdidit.    _Gard_ԀconferredwithPSIsHumanResourcesDirectorandadvocated,aspartofaprogressive ` disciplinaryscheme,atwoweeksuspensionwithoutpay.Instead,theHumanResourcesDirector P instructed_Gard_ԀtoterminateWilliams,and_Gard_ԀdidsoonJanuary8,1998. @   _Gard_ԀauthoredamemoonJanuary12,1998,whichstatedthatshecould findnoevidence  p whichverifiesparticipationbyanyotheremployeetotheactiononDec.23,1997whichbrought ` abouttheterminationofJudyWilliams.However,twoofWilliamsfriendsinformed_Gard_Ԁthat P theyhadtalkedwithWilliamsaboutherterminationandthatWilliamshadintimatedthatVersawas @ involved.Uponreceivingthisinformation,_Gard_ԀspoketoVersa,whodeniedinvolvement. 0   OnJanuary14,1998,_Gard_ԀannouncedtothestaffthatPSIwouldbeginaninvestigationand ! thatJayneWelch,acomputeradministratorforPSI,wouldbecominglaterthatdaytosearchfor "  evidenceonthecomputersystem.WhenWelcharrived,sheaccessedthecomputersystemthrough #! theterminalinWilliamsvacantoffice.WelchutilizedtheidentitycodeADMIN,theonlycodethat $" allowedaccesstotheentiresystem.NooneintheAthensofficewasauthorizedtousthis % # identification.ShelearnedthattheIAatissuehadnotbeensavedwhenitwasalteredandthat  thereforeshewouldbeunabletodeterminetheidentityofthepersonwhohadalteredit.She  informed_Gard_,andnooneelse,ofthisfact.Welchwasthencalledawaytomorepressingbusiness  andleftthebuilding.Believingthatshewouldreturnshortly,shedidnotlogoutofthesystem.  Failingtoprotecta _userid_/passwordcombinationfromexposuretounauthorizedpersonsisa p violationofPSIsCodeofEthics. `    Thatevening,onlythreepeopleremainedintheofficeafter5:00p.m.Twoofthemleft @   probablyatabout5:15p.m.,butcertainlynolaterthan5:30p.m.Versawasaloneintheoffice 0  fromthetimetheothertwoleftuntilapproximately6:30p.m.  p    Thenextmorning,aPSIemployeefoundthatshecouldnotaccessthetwocomputer P  directoriescontainingmostoftheofficesimportantdocuments.Welchreturnedandfound,toher @  surprise,thattheterminalinWilliamsofficehadbeenturnedoff.Uponloggingin,Welch 0  determinedthatthemissingdirectorieshadfirstbeenrelocatedandthendeleted.Afterrestoringthe   missingdatafromatapebackup,Welchfoundthatthelastusertoaccesseitherofthedirectories  inquestionwassomeoneusingtheADMINidentificationandthatthefinalaccesswasobtained  beginningat5:28p.m.onJanuary14,1998.Nootheruserswereloggedinatthetime.    Basedontheprecedinginformation,Welchdrewthefollowingconclusionsand  communicatedthemto_Gard_: p 8  8`   1.thedirectoriesweredeletedbysomeoneworkingattheterminalin P Williamsoffice,whichshehadleftloggedonas ADMIN;@` x` x 8  8`   2.thedeletionoccurredafter5:28p.m.onJanuary14,1998,afterall  p otherusershadloggedoutofthesystem;and`` x` x 8  8`   3.thedeletionwasintentional.6 5#  4      @` x` x BasedontheinformationfromWelchandthefactthatVersawasaloneintheofficeafter5:30p.m.,   PSIterminatedVersaonJanuary19,1998, forattemptingtodeletethe[files]forouroffice, ! apparentlyinanattempttodestroyevidenceofthealteredI/AthathadbeencreatedforMs. "  WilliamsonDecember23,1997. #!   OnJune24,1998,VersabroughtsuitagainstPSIalleging,interalia,unlawful % # discrimination.ThetrialcourtgrantedPSIsmotionforsummaryjudgment,findingthatVersa p&!$ failedtoproduceevidencethatPSIsprofferedlegitimatenondiscriminatoryreasonforterminating `'"% Versawas_pretextual_.Morespecifically,itheldthatthe recordshowsthedefendantsaction(1)  hasabasisinfactwhich(2)actuallymotivatedthetermination,and(3)wassufficienttomotivate  thetermination.    II. p ,  Inordertodeterminewhethersummaryjudgmentisappropriateunderthecircumstancesof P  thiscase,wemustfirstaddressthebodyoflawrelevanttoVersasclaim. @    A.  p  -  Whereaplaintiffallegingracialdiscriminationisunabletopresentdirectevidenceof P  discrimination,thefollowinganalyticalframeworkapplies: @  8  8`   First,theplaintiffhastheburdenofprovingbythepreponderanceof   theevidenceaprimafaciecaseofdiscrimination.Second,ifthe  plaintiffsucceedsinprovingtheprimafaciecase,theburdenshiftsto  thedefendant toarticulatesomelegitimate,nondiscriminatory  reasonfor[itsactions.][ McDonnellDouglasCorp.v.Green ,411  U.S.792,802,93S.Ct.1817,1824,36L.Ed.2d(1973).]Third,  shouldthedefendantcarrythisburden,theplaintiffmustthenhave p anopportunitytoprovebyapreponderanceoftheevidencethatthe ` legitimatereasonsofferedbythedefendantwerenotitstruereasons, P butwereapretextfordiscrimination. Id .,at804,93S.Ct.at1825.8 5#  5      #XkXX)Xk #)XkXXXk@` x` x  Texas_Dept_ԀofCommunityAffairsv._Burdine_ ,450U.S.248,25253,101S.Ct.1089,1093,67L. ` Ed.2d207(1981). P   BothpartiesagreethatVersahasestablishedaprimafaciecaseofdiscriminationandthat 0  PSIhasprofferedalegitimate,nondiscriminatoryreasonforterminatingVersa.Therefore,the   disputebeforeusnowiswhetherVersahascarriedherburdenofshowingthatPSIsproffered  reasonforterminatingherwas_pretextual_.     Aplaintiffmayestablishpretextinoneofthreeways:byshowing (1)thattheproffered  reasonshadnobasisinfact,(2)thattheprofferedreasonsdidnotactuallymotivate[theemployees] p discharge,or(3)thattheywereinsufficienttomotivatedischarge. _Manzer_Ԁv.DiamondShamrock `  _Chems_.Co. ,29F.3d1078,1084(6thCir.1994)(quoting _McNabola_Ԁv.ChicagoTransitAuth. ,10 P  F.3d501,513(7thCir.1993))(emphasisin _Manzer_ ). @    Anemployersprofferedreasonforterminationofanemployeehasnobasisinfactif the  p  employersprofferednondiscriminatoryreasonsfor[theemployees]demotionordischargeare `  factuallyfalse. Andersonv.Baxter_Heathcare_ԀCorp. ,13F.3d1120,112324(7thCir.1994);see P  also _Manzer_ ,29F.3dat1084(citing BaxterHealthcare ).Thequestionisnotwhetherthe @  employersdecisionwassound,butwhethertheemployersassertedreasonfortheadverse 0  employmentdecisionis_pretextual_. InreLewis ,845F.2d624,633(6thCir.1988).The   reasonablenessofanemployersdecisionmaybeconsidered,butonlysofarasit illuminatesthe  employersmotivations. Id . Themorequestionabletheemployersreason,theeasieritwillbe  forthejurytoexposeitaspretext. Id .Thus,onsummaryjudgment,anonmovingplaintiffmust   produceevidencefromwhicharational_factfinder_Ԁcouldinferthatthecompanyliedaboutits  profferedreasonsfor[theemployees]dismissal. BaxterHealthcare ,13F.3dat1124(internal  quotationsomitted). p   Inattemptingtoshowthatadefendantsprofferedreasondidnotactuallymotivatedischarge, P aplaintiffmayeither(1)produceevidencethattheadverseemploymentdecisionwasmorelikely @ motivatedbydiscrimination,or(2)showthattheemployersexplanationisnotcredible. Klinev. 0 TennesseeValleyAuth. ,128F.3d337,34243(6thCir.1997).  p   Toshowthatadefendantsprofferedreasonisinsufficienttomotivatedischarge,aplaintiff P mustproduce evidencethatotheremployees,particularlyemployeesnotintheprotectedclass,were @ notfiredeventhoughtheyengagedinsubstantiallyidenticalconducttothatwhichtheemployer 0 contendsmotivateditsdischargeoftheplaintiff. _Manzer_ ,29F.3dat1084.Moreover,   8  8`   [i]tisfundamentalthattomakeacomparisonofadiscrimination "  plaintiffstreatmenttothatofnonminorityemployees,theplaintiff #! mustshowthatthe _comparables_aresimilarlysituatedinall $" respects.Thus,tobedeemed similarlysituated,theindividuals % # withwhomtheplaintiffseekstocomparehis/hertreatmentmusthave p&!$ dealtwiththesamesupervisor,havebeensubjecttothesame `'"% standardsandhaveengagedinthesameconductwithoutsuch P(#& differentiatingormitigatingcircumstancesthatwoulddistinguish @)$' theirconductortheemployerstreatmentofthemforit.0*%(` x` x    +p&)  Mitchellv.ToledoHosp. ,964F.2d577,583(6thCir.1992)(citationomitted)(emphasisin   original).       B.  EGxG  Havingexaminedtherelevantlawpertainingtotheplaintiffscauseofaction,wemustnow  determinewhethersummaryjudgmentforPSIisappropriateundertherecordnowbeforeus.In  decidingwhetheragrantofsummaryjudgmentisappropriate,courtsaretodetermine ifthe p pleadings,depositions,answerstointerrogatories,andadmissionsonfile,togetherwiththe `  affidavits,ifany,showthatthereisnogenuineissueastoanymaterialfactandthatthemoving P  partyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Rule56.04,Tenn.R.Civ.P.Courts musttake @  thestrongestlegitimateviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowallreasonable 0  inferencesinfavorofthatparty,anddiscardallcountervailingevidence. Byrdv.Hall ,847S.W.2d  p  208,210211(Tenn.1993). `    Thus,thequestionsacourtmustconsiderindeterminingwhethertograntordenyamotion @  forsummaryjudgmentare(1)whetherafactualdisputeexists;(2)whetherthatfactismaterial;and 0  (3)whetherthatfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial. Id .at214. Adisputedfactismaterialifit   mustbedecidedinordertoresolvethesubstantiveclaimordefenseatwhichthemotionisdirected.   Id .at215.Adisputedmaterialfactcreatesagenuineissueif areasonablejurycouldlegitimately  resolvethatfactinfavorofonesideortheother. Id .Thephrase genuineissuerefersexclusively  tofactualissuesandnottolegalconclusionsthatcouldbedrawnfromthefacts. Id .at211.    Thepartyseekingsummaryjudgmenthastheburdenofdemonstratingthatthereisno p genuineissueofmaterialfactandthatitisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw. Id .at215. ` Generally,adefendantseekingsummaryjudgmentmaymeetthisburdeninoneoftwoways:(1) P byaffirmativelynegatinganessentialelementoftheplaintiffscase,or(2)byconclusively @ establishinganaffirmativedefense. Id .at215n.5. Aconclusoryassertionthatthenonmoving 0 partyhasnoevidenceisclearlyinsufficient. Id .at215.  p   Oncethemovingpartysatisfiesitsburdenofshowingthatthereisnogenuineissueof P materialfact,theburdenthenshiftstothenonmovingpartytoshowthatthereisagenuineissueof @ materialfactrequiringsubmissiontothetrieroffact. Id .Thenonmovingpartycannotsimplyrely 0 uponitspleadings,butrathermustsetforth,byaffidavitordiscoverymaterials,specificfacts   showingagenuineissueofmaterialfactfortrial.Rule56.06,Tenn.R.Civ.P.; Byrd ,847S.W.2d ! at215.Theevidenceofferedbythenonmovingpartymustbeadmissibleattrialbutneednotbein "  admissibleform.Itmustbetakenastrue. Byrd ,847S.W.2dat21516. #! EU  Inemploymentdiscriminationcases,thesummaryjudgmentanalysismustbeapplied at % # eachstageofthe McDonnellDouglas inquiry. Clinev.CatholicDioceseofToledo ,206F.3d651, p&!$ 661(6thCir.2000).BecausethepartiesagreethatVersahasestablishedaprimafaciecaseof `'"% discriminationandthatPSIhasprofferedalegitimate,nondiscriminatoryreasonforterminating P(#& Versa,weareonlyconcernedherewiththethirdstageofthe McDonnellDouglas inquiry.With @)$' regardtothisstagetheplaintiffsburdentoshowpretextthestandardtobeappliedonsummary 0*%( judgmentisthattheplaintiffmustonly produceevidencefromwhicharational_factfinder_Ԁcould  +p&) inferthatthecompanyliedaboutitsprofferedreasonsfor[theemployees]dismissal. Baxter ,`'* Healthcare ,13F.3dat1124(internalquotationsomitted). Iftheonlyreasonanemployeroffers  forfiringanemployeeisalie,theinferencethattherealreasonwasaforbiddenone8mayrationally  bedrawn.Thisisthecommonsensebehindtheruleof McDonnellDouglas 8.Thepointisonly  thatiftheinferenceofimpropermotivecanbedrawn,theremustbeatrial. _Shager_Ԁv.UpjohnCo. ,  913F.2d398,401(7thCir.1990). p [  III. P  A. 0  \  VersafirstarguesthatPSIsprofferedreasonforterminatingherhasnobasisinfact.More `  specifically,shearguesthatthefilescouldhavebeendeletedaftersheleftonJanuary14,1998,or P  earlythenextmorningbeforeshearrivedandthatPSIsconclusionthatVersadeletedthefilesis @  baseduponsubjectivespeculationandconjecture.Herargumentconcludesthatagenuineissueof 0  materialfactexistsastothequestionwhethersheinfactdeletedthefiles.     Wedisagree.PSIterminatedVersabasedonthefollowingfacts:  8  8`   (1)thefilesweredeletedbysomeoneloggedinundertheuser  identity ADMIN;` x` x 8  8`   (2)thecomputeradministratorhadloggedintothesystemas `  ADMINthroughtheterminalinWilliamsofficeandhadleftthe P officewithoutloggingout;@` x` x 8  8`   (3)thefilesweredeletedafter5:28p.m.onJanuary14,1998,afterall  p otherusershadloggedoutofthesystem;`` x` x 8  8`   (4)thedeletionwasintentionalbecausethedirectoriesweremoved @ beforetheyweredeleted;thesystempromptsuserstoconfirmtheir 0 intenttodeletefiles;deletedfilesarenormallyretainedinthe    recyclebin,butthefileshadbeendeletedfromthisareaaswell; ! and" ` x` x 8  8`   (5)Versawastheonlypersonintheofficefrom probably...about $" 5:15p.m.,butcertainlynolaterthan5:30p.m.toapproximately % # 6:30p.m.onJanuary14,1998.p&!$` x` x Becausethesefactsareundisputed,PSIhascarrieditssummaryjudgmentburdenofshowingthat P(#& thereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactrelatingtothequestionofwhetheritsprofferedreasonfor @)$' terminatingVersais_pretextual_.Therefore,ithaseffectivelyshiftedtheburdentoVersatoshowthat 0*%( agenuineissueofmaterialfactexistsbyproducingevidencefromwhicharational_factfinder_Ԁcould  +p&) inferthatPSIliedaboutitsprofferedreasonforterminatingher.Thisshehasnotdone.Whether ,`'* Versainfactdeletedthefilesmaybeadisputedfact,butitisnotmaterialinthecontextofthis  summaryjudgmentanalysis.Eveniftakenastrue,Versasdenialthatshedeletedthefilesdoesnot  speaktothespecificfactualgroundsuponwhichPSIbaseditsconclusionthatshediddeletethe  files,anditthereforedoesnotilluminatePSIsmotivations.HerdenialrendersPSIsconclusionthat  shedeletedthefilesmorequestionable,butitdoesnotconstituteevidencefromwhicharational p _factfinder_ԀcouldinferthatPSIliedaboutitsreasonforterminatingVersa.Inshort,herdenialdoes `  notbearonthequestionofpretext.Hence,shehasfailedtoestablishagenuineissueofmaterialfact P  regardingthequestionofwhetherPSIsprofferedreasonhadabasisinfact. @  @)B.  p    Versaalsoarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatshefailedtoestablishthata P  discriminatoryreason,asopposedtoPSIsprofferedlegitimatereason,morelikelymotivatedthe @  terminationdecision.Thisargumentiswithoutmeritunderthesamerationaleasthatjustdiscussed, 0  i.e.,herdenialofculpabilitydoesnotbearonthequestionofpretextasitdoesnotconstitute   evidencefromwhicharational_factfinder_ԀcouldfindthatPSIliedaboutitsprofferedreasonfor  terminatingher.  @)C.    Finally,VersaarguesthatthetrialcourterredinfindingthatPSIsprofferedreasonfor p terminatingherwasasufficientreasontodoso.Morespecificallysheargues(1)that_Gard_Ԁwasnot ` terminatedforsigninganincorrectIAseveralyearsearlier;(2)thatKarinWarewasnotterminated P forpreparinganincorrectIAseveralyearsearlier;(3)that_Gard_Ԁadvocatedsuspensionratherthan @ terminationwhenWilliamsstatedthatshesentthefalsifiedIAtoherformerhusbandsemployer; 0 and(4)thatWelchviolatedcompanypolicybyleavingherselfloggedinwhenshelefttheofficefor  p theday. `   WefindandholdthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinfindingthatVersafailedtoestablishthat @ PSIsassertedreasonwasinsufficienttoterminateher.Asstatedearlier,PSIhascarrieditsburden 0 onsummaryjudgmentofestablishingthatthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactrelatingtothe   questionofpretext.Thus,Versahastheburdenofshowingthatagenuineissueofmaterialfact ! exists.WithrespecttothesufficiencyofPSIsprofferedreasonfortermination,wefindthatVersas "  asserted_comparables_Ԁarenotsufficientlysimilartoestablishpretext.First,WareandWilliamsare, #! likeVersa,AfricanAmericanfemales,andtherefore,anydissimilartreatmentbetweenVersaonthe $" onehandandthesetwoemployeesontheotherwouldnottendtoestablishdiscrimination.Second, % # Versahasnotshown,andwehavebeenunabletofind,proofintherecordthattheincorrectIAor p&!$ _IAs_Ԁpreparedand/orsignedbyWareand_Gard_Ԁweretheresultofintentionalacts.Onthecontrary, `'"% theyseemtohavebeentheresultofinadvertence.Third,though_Gard_Ԁwishedtosuspend,rather P(#& thanterminate,WilliamsforherintentionalsubmissionofanincorrectIAtoherformerhusbands @)$' employer,Williamswasinfactterminated.Finally,leavingthebuildingforthedaywithoutlogging 0*%( outofthecomputersystemisnotsubstantiallyidenticaltointentionallydeletingfiles.Accordingly,  +p&) wefindandholdthatVersahasfailedtocarryhersummaryjudgmentburdenofshowingthatthere ,`'* isagenuineissueofmaterialfactregardingthesufficiencyofPSIsprofferedreasonforterminating  Versa.ThetrialcourtwascorrectingrantingPSIsmotionforsummaryjudgment.    IV.  y  Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thiscaseisremandedforcollectionofcosts, `  assessedbelow,pursuanttoapplicablelaw.Costsonappealaretaxedtotheappellant. P  #XkXX)Xk2#   `     h     ___________________________________  p     `     h     CHARLESD.SUSANO,JR.,JUDGE