context: However, "we do not sit as a super-personnel department that reexamines an entity's business decisions"; rather, "our inquiry is limited to whether the employer gave an honest explanation of its behavior." In light of Leveridge's lengthy employment history, including her time working as an accountant for the City of Philadelphia and in the accounting department for South western Bell, we see no basis for a reasonable juror to conclude that the defendants did not actually believe that Leveridge satisfied the experience requirement.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 496 F.3d 703, 708
citation_a.parenthetical: concluding that defendant was entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiffs "evidence at most show[ed] that the evaluators could have given him somewhat higher scores and [his competitor] somewhat ' lower scores than they did"
citation_a.sentence: See Jones, 198 F.3d at 414. ("While Jones may quarrel with the school district’s conclusions regarding particular controversies, the bona fides of its determinations simply cannot be doubted.”); cf. Jackson v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 703, 708 (D.C.Cir.2007) (concluding that defendant was entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiffs “evidence at most show[ed] that the evaluators could have given him somewhat higher scores and [his competitor] somewhat ' lower scores than they did”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 198 F.3d 414, 414
citation_b.parenthetical: "While Jones may quarrel with the school district's conclusions regarding particular controversies, the bona fides of its determinations simply cannot be doubted."
citation_b.sentence: See Jones, 198 F.3d at 414. ("While Jones may quarrel with the school district’s conclusions regarding particular controversies, the bona fides of its determinations simply cannot be doubted.”); cf. Jackson v. Gonzales, 496 F.3d 703, 708 (D.C.Cir.2007) (concluding that defendant was entitled to summary judgment when the plaintiffs “evidence at most show[ed] that the evaluators could have given him somewhat higher scores and [his competitor] somewhat ' lower scores than they did”).