See Wilson, 376 F.3d at 1089. One of the necessary skills for the engineering manager position was project management. The engineering manager spends 30% of his time managing projects, whereas six other tasks account for the remaining 70%. Thus, project management is the cornerstone of the position. REI witnesses, Paul Tsai, Carl Wilson, and Frantz Pierre, all of whom oversaw Nance’s performance, attested in their respective affidavits that they did not believe that Nance possessed the requisite project management skills to be promoted to engineering manager. Although Nance argues that he was qualified for the position, an employee’s testimony about his qualifications constitutes “weak and insubstantial” evidence. See Ford v. Gen. Motors Corp., 656 F.2d 117, 119 (5th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The only evidence Nance sought to introduce
holding that admission of hearsay testimony was harmless where the jury heard admissible testimony from three other sources to the same effect holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony from two witnesses whose testimony was brief and consistent with the victims testimony did not constitute drumbeat repetition of the victims statements holding that plaintiffs own testimony and hearsay testimony constituted weak and insubstantial evidence holding that a social workers testimony that a child was sincere constituted impermissible character testimony holding that agents testimony as to witnesss identification was not hearsay