for an employer to assign work to an employee, or require that employee to meet certain performance standards or expectations where the action is based on factors other than age. It is not unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an (8th Cir. 1985) (affirming the district court’s grant of j.n.o.v. and reiterating that the intent of ADEA is not to review the correctness of an employer’s business decision). In these cases, we recognized that an employer may exercise business judgment in making personnel decisions. See also Jorgensen v. Modern Woodmen of Am., 761 F.2d 502, 505 (8th Cir. 1985) (observing that ‘the ADEA is not intended to be used as a means of reviewing the propriety of a business decision . . .’); Smith v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 770 F.2d 719, 723 n. 3 (8th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1050 [89 L.Ed.2d 581,
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 the court may not overturn the administrative law judges factual findings as long as they are supported by competent substantial evidence recognizing that an employer may develop arbitrary ridiculous and even irrational policies as long as they are applied in a nondiscriminatory manner holding that that choices as to selection and arrangement are entitled to copyright protection only so long as they are made independently holding that this court may reconsider an erroneous ruling as long as the appeal is current