proffered explanation is a matter of genuine dispute, but the ultimate issue of intentional discrimination is deemed not to be genuinely controverted. This is the view adopted by the Eighth Circuit. • ■ (Emphasis in original). Plaintiffs arguments rest, at bottom, on the contention that defendant did not treat him fairly, gave erroneous reasons for his firing, and ’willfully misrepresented the fact of his discharge. Under the law of this Circuit, none of these contentions, even if true, are enough without more to support an inference of illegal discrimination. The employment discrimination statutes are not meant to transform “at will” employment into perpetual employment where equal treatment is guaranteed to all employees and termination is legal only “f n. 3 (8th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1050, 106 S.Ct. 1273,
recognizing that an employer may develop arbitrary ridiculous and even irrational policies as long as they are applied in a nondiscriminatory manner holding that this court may reconsider an erroneous ruling as long as the appeal is current recognizing in title vii context that employers may have hidden reasons for terminating employees or hiring someone less qualified  as long as the reasons are nondiscriminatory they are free to hire and fire as they choose holding that that choices as to selection and arrangement are entitled to copyright protection only so long as they are made independently holding that the court may not overturn the administrative law judges factual findings as long as they are supported by competent substantial evidence