Pretext due to employer not following its policies

I have long felt that employers who lack organization and sophistication in promulgating, maintaining, enforcing and revising written policies should consider having no written policies at all. A live and credible witness can explain why the decision adversely affecting a claimant is based on legitimate business related criteria. That can be enough for summary judgment. But when this explanation is in conflict with or contradicts employer's written policies, a material fact dispute likely exists. In Norris v. City of Millbrook, a federal district court in Alabama agrees. Money quote after the jump

Furthermore, Plaintiff points out that Defendant's documentation regarding her demotion is potentially suspect. All of the negative performance memoranda regarding Plaintiff was created on or after May 13, 2010, a mere eight days prior to the adverse employment action.[7] The lack of documentation at the time of the supposed incidents of misconduct indicates, at the very least, that Defendant failed to follow its own misconduct procedures. See Young v. Dillon Cos., Inc., 468 F.3d 1243, 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (stating that "evidence suggesting, inter alia, that the defendant fabricated documentation relating to the [adverse employment action] and failed to follow its own written . . . procedures" is relevant to plaintiff's showing of pretext). While the timing of such documentation "does not lead to the automatic conclusion" that Plaintiff's demotion was because of her age, it does support an "`inference' that Defendant might be `cover[ing] up a discriminatory purpose.'" Ashe v. Aronov Homes, Inc., 354 F. Supp. 2d 1251, 1261 (M.D. Ala. 2004) (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147 (2000)).