Under Rule 10(a) when the trial court changes the language of the stated discharge reason; substitutes another document as the focus of pretext analysis; and finds no pretext; the appellate court sanctions this and cites no pretext law has the appellate court "so far departed" or sanctioned such a departure by the district court so as to require the exercise of this Court's supervisory power?

Whether the appellate court erred in affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment despite the district court's failure to properly analyze the issue of pretext under the McDonnell Douglas framework