than Reno’s failure to satisfy the job’s minimum requirements, was the motivating factor in Metro’s decision. The only other evidence Reno offers in support of her claim is her own testimony, which not only fails to provide specific facts that would support an inference of discrimination but also reveals nothing more than her subjective belief that she was not promoted on account of her age. An employee’s “ ‘own self-serving remarks standing alone are insufficient to raise doubt as to the credence of the employer’s explanation for termination.” ’ Schultz v. General Elec. Capital Corp., 37 F.3d 329, 334 (7th Cir.1994) (quoting Billups v. Methodist Hosp. of Chicago, 922 F.2d 1300, 1304 (7th Cir.1991)); see also Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, there is no evidence in the record to
holding that former employees subjective belief that he suffered an adverse employment action as a result of discrimination without more is not enough to survive former employers summary judgment motion holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship holding that even an incorrect belief that an employees performance is inadequate can be a legitimate reason for an adverse employment action holding that employees subjective belief that age discrimination occurred is insufficient to create a jury issue holding that termination is an adverse employment action