satisfactory. See Alvarez v. Royal Atlantic Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1266 (11th Cir.2010). The plaintiffs burden is to demonstrate that it was unlawful discrimination that motivated the dismissal, and not simply an employer’s erroneous belief or assessment about poor performance. Id. at 1267. The plaintiff correctly asserts that Hurd did not follow its own employment-termination policies that are set forth in its employee handbook, and she relies upon Barros, 710 A.2d at 686, to support an argument that this too gives rise to a suspicion of mendacity. This argument is unpersuasive, however, because it is undisputed that her employment was designated as “at will” that could be terminated “with or without cause, at any time.” Hurd’s policy of progressive discip 20 (10th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Fane v. Locke Reynolds, LLP, 480 F.3d 534,
holding no pretext for not following progressive discipline where policy contemplated immediate termination for certain offenses holding that failure to follow mandatory provision of statute renders the act void whereas failure to follow directory provision does not holding failure to follow progressive discipline does not demonstrate pretext when use of the policy is entirely discretionary holding failure to follow progressive discipline policy does not constitute pretext when employer reserves right to fire atwill employees without notice holding that the statement in the employers progressive discipline policy that in situations where employee behavior warrants immediate termination the stages of this process do not need to be followed granted the employer unbounded discretion to discharge employees without following the guidelines