instruction, training and teaching. In sum, Plaintiff contends that the subjective reasons asserted are not credible based on evidence in the record. However, Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence to establish that the decisionmakers with respect to this position did not actually find that the successful candidates were better qualified than Plaintiff. Plaintiffs evidence is thus insufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the reasons given by Defendants were a pretext for intentional discrimination. Further, even if Plaintiff could discredit one of the reasons Howard decided not to interview him, that fact would not establish that Defendants’ entire proffered explanation is pretextual. Chapman v. AI Transp., 229 F.3d 1012, 1024-25 (11th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>); see also Combs v. Plantation Patterns, 106
holding that unsupported allegations or denials are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for purposes of summary judgment holding that there was a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment holding that employer is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff proffers sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether each of the employers articulated reasons is pretextual holding that an eeoc reasonable cause determination letter did not constitute evidence precluding summary judgment when the other evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact holding that when there are no genuine issues of material fact summary judgment is appropriate