evidence Ince met with Pedersen prior to Pedersen making any report and told Ped-ersen she was suffering from performance .issues at her registered nurse position and needed to work with a more experienced staff. Pedersen has done nothing to dispute these explanations. Pedersen has further failed to dispute BMA’s explanation for finding she voluntarily resigned from her position after failing to return to work. Pedersen’s speculation about an ulterior motive by BMA is unsupported and contradicted by other undisputed facts in the record. Accordingly, we will not second-guess BMA’s business decisions to suspend, demote and then terminate Ped-ersen because of her performance, absence and refusal to return to work. See Brown v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 113 F.3d 139, 141-42 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Because Pedersen has failed to generate a
holding that regardless of strategic considerations that a lawyer concludes weigh against such a decision a defendant who wishes to testify must be permitted to do so citations and internal quotation marks omitted holding that disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak but they  do not prevent anyone from speaking citation and internal quotation marks omitted holding that under ada discrimination need not be the sole reason for the adverse employment decision but must actually play a role in the employers decision making process and have a determinative influence on the outcome citation internal quotation marks and alterations omitted recognizing that absent illegality we do not weigh the wisdom of any particular employment decision internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted