employment action. See id.; Corbin, 25 F.3d at 1550 (citing Hairston, 9 F.3d at 920). A plaintiff may “survive summary judgment, and judgment as a matter of law, if there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a genuine issue of fact as to the truth of each of the [defendantj’s proffered reasons for its challenged action.” Combs, 106 F.3d at 1529. However, “there will be instances where, although the plaintiff has established a prima facie case and set forth sufficient evidence to reject the [defendant’s] explanation, no rational factfinder could conclude that the action was discriminatory.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 2109, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000); accord Chapman v. AI Transport, 229 F.3d 1012, 1025 n. 11 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). Under such circumstances, a plaintiff “still
holding that the findings of fact conclusions of law and decision signed by the school boards president constituted the decision of the board recognizing that the reeves decision modified the combs decision holding that this courts review is limited to the bia decision and the portions of the ijs decision that it expressly adopted holding that evidence contrary to an administrators decision does not make the decision arbitrary and capricious so long as a reasonable basis appears for the decision recognizing that the existence of a copy of a decision in a bill file along with numerous references to a decision of the court of appeals in the legislative history indicated that an amendment was made in response to that decision