“The omission of the clinic incident from the termination letter calls into question whether Chevron truly relied on the clinic incident as a reason for terminating Ion. Second, all accounts of the clinic incident offered by Chevron are vague and include no specific or objective description of Ion’s behavior. The accounts do not describe foul language, physical manifestations of anger, or any other description of Ion’s behavior outside of Ion asking questions about having to sign the GO–153 form. The failure to bring forth any evidence about Ion’s actual behavior calls into doubt Chevron’s reasonable belief and good-faith reliance on the clinic employees’ report.
Ion v. Chevron USA, Inc., 731 F.3d 379, 395-96 (5th Cir. September 26, 2013) (Guirola, Jr., J.).