evaluation received on January 15, 2004 was positive, and that it was only after her invocation of FMLA rights that her performance came into question. (R. Doc. 34-2 at Ex. 2). The positive evaluation Anderson referred to was for work completed during the 2002-03 festival year, not for her current performance. At the January 15 meeting, Anderson’s supervisor also discussed her current performance problems, including her inability to focus and to complete assigned tasks, as well as her negative attitude toward her supervisor. This occurred before she brought up taking FMLA leave. Further, Anderson does not dispute that her job performance continued to deteriorate between January 15, 2004 and the date of her termination. Anderson onstructors, Inc., 986 F.2d 115, 119 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court finds that Anderson has
holding that unsubstantiated representations will not withstand summary judgment holding that unsubstantiated oral reprimands do not constitute an adverse em ployment action absent evidence that they had some impact on the employees employment status holding that adverse inference alone insufficient to support a motion for summary judgment holding that an employees unsubstantiated testimony that he was better qualified than employees that were not subject to adverse employment actions was insufficient to defeat summary judgment holding that unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence