“Pugh fails to show that the City’s proffered reason for his discharge is unworthy of credence. It is insufficient for Mr. Pugh simply to assert that he did not misappropriate funds and that the City’s belief was mistaken without offering further evidentiary support. See Green, 197 F.3d at 899. Rather, he must present evidence to create a material dispute as to the City’s honest belief that he had mishandled the funds.
“[T]he City supported its legitimate reason for terminating Mr. Pugh with documented evidence and affidavits. The City submitted Scherer’s report of the internal investigation that he had conducted after the police were contacted by Marquess and Tucker. Marquess and Tucker contacted the police to express concern that Mr. Pugh had collected the twenty dollars from a dog owner and had not yet turned it in to either of them. When Mr. Pugh took the dog from the family and accepted the 20-dollar donation, he also collected a document from the owners that included an owner’s signature and the amount of the donation. However, when the document was posted at the pound, the portion of the document containing the donation amount was removed.”
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Dillin, J., Ripple, J.