break, she needed an extra half hour to shower and dress after ■ the aerobics class. In response, McGill’s supervisors advised her by memorandum that she would be permitted to take “one and one-half hour” off for the class, but would have to “make up the extra half hour” that was “beyond the time provided for lunch.” PL’s Ex. E (J.A. at 49). McGill contends that OPIC discriminated against her on account of her mental disability by requiring her to make up the extra half hour. Lacking any direct evidence of discriminatory intent, McGill argues that OPIC’s intent can be inferred from its disparate treatment of her; she asserts that other, similarly-situated employees who participated in the same class did not have to make up any time. Yet, while there was testimony that nu th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation omitted). Indeed,
holding evidence must rise above mere speculation holding that pure speculation  is insufficient to satisfy movants burden holding that mere conjecture or speculation is insufficient under a preponderance standard holding that mere speculation is insufficient to support a jury verdict holding speculation insufficient to avoid summary judgment