assertion that age, or any other type of invidious discrimination, was the most likely motivation for his termination. Kalkhorst’s uncertified transcriptions of various grievance hearings — self-edited and italicized in places for “emphasis” — do not alter this conclusion, nor do the audio CDs of those hearings also submitted. Even assuming UPS “had it out for him” or had “targeted” him for termination based on his history of filing grievances (as alleged in his original complaint) or any other reason, without evidence linking those motivations to his age or any other discriminatory factor, Kalkhorst cannot survive summary judgment on a claim under the ADEA. Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. at 610, 113 S.Ct. 1701. See also Neal v. Roche, 349 F.3d 1246, 1252 (10th Cir.2003)(<HOLDING>). Finally, it should be noted there is an
holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii recognizing that an employer may develop arbitrary ridiculous and even irrational policies as long as they are applied in a nondiscriminatory manner holding owner of company qualified as an employer due to inter alia his authority to hire and fire employees and overall financial control of company recognizing in title vii context that employers may have hidden reasons for terminating employees or hiring someone less qualified  as long as the reasons are nondiscriminatory they are free to hire and fire as they choose holding that government officials are provided with qualified immunity so long as their actions could have been reasonably thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated