because of the employer’s view of the employee’s capabilities. ['][]... [f] Put another way, the basic principle is that an employer has the right to assign work to an employee, to change an employee’s duties, to refuse to assign a particular job to an employee or even to discharge an employee for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all absent intentional age discrimination. ...’’’ (Id. at p. 848.) The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that refusal to give the instruction was reversible error. (Walker, supra, 995 F.2d at pp. 849-850.) Recognizing that the issue was one of first impression, the court began its analysis with reference to general principles from earlier Eighth Circuit cases, including this: “Neufeld v. Searle Laboratories, 884 F.2d 335, 340 (8th Cir. 1989) (<HOLDING>), and Bell v. Gas Service Co., 778 F.2d 512,
recognizing that courts have no business telling searle how to make personnel decisions which may be objectively or subjectively based recognizing that decisions of other courts that have examined these questions are relevant recognizing that pursuant to the business judgment rule the decisions of business professionals on the board of directors should be presumed valid holding that under praprotnik city manager had final policymaking authority regarding personnel decision despite city charters command that all personnel decisions be made according to merit and fitness holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions