are merely pretextual. To be sure, individual participants in a collective termination decision might well provide a variety of reasons for the termination of an employee. The mere variety in the reasons would not alone undermine their credibility. Each individual may consider a different reason to be the essential factor in a decision to terminate. E.g., Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1063 (9th Cir.2002) (upholding grant of summary judgment to employer when employee was fired for two different, but consistent, reasons); Johnson v. Nordstrom, Inc., 260 F.3d 727, 733-34 (7th Cir.2001) (finding no pretext when the employer’s reasons for termination were neither inconsistent nor conflicting); Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 918 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). However, the reasons stated by the ARI
holding that an employees unsubstantiated testimony that he was better qualified than employees that were not subject to adverse employment actions was insufficient to defeat summary judgment recognizing that nonmoving party must present affirmative evidence  to defeat summary judgment holding that when regulations are intended to have different purposes and are not dependent on each other they are not intertwined holding that summary judgment motion itself must expressly present reasons entitling movant to summary judgment holding that different justifications for an adverse action are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment when those reasons are not incompatible