of the RIF, Dr. Mereish, a pharmacologist, was not conducting research at the USAMRIID but rather was on detail to the Biological Arms Control Treaty Organization. Dr. Assaad, a physiologist, was working on developing a vaccine for ricin utilizing a particular kind of antigen. His research, however, was superseded soon after he was discharged in favor of new ricin research based on a recombinant molecular construct, which is an entirely different source than the antigen upon which Dr. Assaad was focusing. Finally, Dr. Cros-land, a physiologist, was investigating bo-tulinum toxins at the time he was laid off. He was attempting to develop a cell line that would respond to botulinum toxins, in order to facilitate further research of these agents. After he was lai 1176, 1183 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). If we failed to allow proffered
holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false recognizing as a legitimate reason for conducting layoffs a firms need to retain employees with the contemporary skills necessary to assimilate new technologies holding that a firms decision to implement a reductioninforce to meet its budgetary goals during a business downturn was a legitimate reason for terminating an employee holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action holding that drugrelated misconduct is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination