United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia - Center for ...

easonable jury could conclude that [employer’s] stated reasons for her
termination are ‘unworthy of credence’”); Hill v. City of Scranton, 411 F.3d
118, 129, n.16 (3rd Cir. 2005)(because “the only evidence” on an issue of
fact came from “an interested witness….this factual issue cannot be resolved
on summary judgment.”); Laxton v. Gap, Inc., 333 F.3d 572, 577 (5th Cir.
2003) (“We must disregard evidence favorable to the moving party that the
jury is not required to believe”); id. at 582 (overturning district court’s
judgment as a matter of law in part because “the jury may have determined
that [moving party’s] witnesses lacked credibility.”).
Winkler’s testimony was directly contradicted by several sources.
First, two other L-3 executives, Kevin Hopkins and Marc Peltier, testified at
depositions that L-3 translators could discuss what occurred during
interrogations. Both testified that L-3 translators were permitted to report
any abuse of prisoners occurring during interrogations to L-3 management.
SOF at 14.
MATERIAL DELETED
Second, documents from L-3’s own files state that translators were
required to discuss interrogations with their L-3 site management chain if
the interrogations included the illegal treatment of prisoners. SOF at 11-12.
28