arguing that this evidence demonstrates he was meeting OCIC’s legitimate performance expectations. As to the opinions, they were offered either by those whose employment with OCIC ended well before Warch’s or by third parties who were never employed by OCIC at all. Thus, they lack probative value as to whether Warch was meeting his employer’s legitimate expectations at the time he was fired. See, e.g., Hawkins v. PepsiCo, Inc., 203 F.3d 274, 280 (4th Cir.2000) (disregarding plaintiffs opinions of her own performance because “[i]t is the perception of the decision maker which is relevant, not the self-assessment of the plaintiff,” and finding the opinions of her co-workers “similarly close to irrelevant”) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); O’Connor, 56 F.3d at 547 (<HOLDING>); cf. King v. Rumsfeld, 328 F.3d 145, 149-50
holding that a review of an employees 1989 performance was irrelevant to a determination of whether his performance was satisfactory at the time of his termination in august of 1990 holding that prior positive performance evaluations are not dispositive as to whether the employer was satisfied with the employees performance by the time of the termination holding that allegations concerning the plaintiffs satisfactory work performance termination and much younger replacement did not  by themselves  suffice to plead an age discrimination claim holding ones satisfactory performance of duties leading to a promotion does establish a plaintiffs qualification for a job holding that governmentcaused delay in contractor performance violated implied duty not to hinder performance of other party