“Pace’s argument to the district court and throughout the trial was that she had five years of “warehouse experience,” if that undefined term was construed broadly, and that “[s]he was the best qualified.”*5 …In light of the ambiguity in the phrase, the jury considered the employer’s argument that Pace did not have the requisite experience, and found she did. They could have relied on her presentation of evidence … In addition, the jury received the testimony from Brent Bencaz, Pace’s supervisor, that he believed her to be qualified, and Terry Hughes’s testimony that Pace met the thirteen job criteria that she believed the position required. This testimony proved enough to convince the jury, and nothing in the record suggests that this decision was irrational or unreasonable.”
Pace v. Livingston Parish Sch. Bd., 2014 WL 3973059, at *5 (5th Cir. Aug. 15, 2014) (Higginbotham, Clement, and Higginson, JJ.).