the positions she applied for, the reason (if any) given for her nonselection, and the selected candidates’s race, sex, age, and education. Beal’s chart, however, does not compare her experience, work history, performance at Convergys, or other qualifications to the candidates selected: she included none of that information for the selected candidates. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Beal, she did not present evidence establishing that she was more qualified than any of the candidates selected for the positions she applied for, or that she was eligible for the remaining positions. She failed to show that no reasonable person could have chosen the selected candidates over her. See Brooks v. Cnty. Comm’n of Jefferson Cnty., Ala., 446 F.3d 1160, 1163 (11th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>) (quotation and citation omitted). III. Turning
holding that the plaintiff could not show surprise when the plaintiff had received the additional terms from the defendant prior to the agreement holding that an epa plaintiff must show she has selected an appropriate comparator holding that the plaintiff must have more than a unilateral expectation the plaintiff must have a legitimate claim of entitlement to the benefit holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity holding that in the failuretopromote context a plaintiff must show that the disparities between the successful applicants and her own qualifications were of such weight and significance that no reasonable person in the exercise of impartial judgment could have chosen the candidate selected over the plaintiff