cause.” Hill v. St. Louis University, 123 F.3d 1114, 1120 (8th Cir.1997). The statutes serve a narrow purpose and do not prohibit employment decisions based on poor job performance, erroneous evaluations, or unsound business practices. Id. (emphasis added). Although Title VII tolerates no discrimination whether subtle or otherwise, this circuit has also acknowledged that employers have wide latitude to make business decisions. “[A]n employer has the right to ... assign work, to change an employee’s duties, to refuse to assign a particular job, and to discharge — for good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all, absent intentional ... discrimination.” Walker v. AT & T Phone Ctr., Inc., 995 F.2d 846, 849-50 (8th Cir.1993); Neufeld v. Searle Laboratories, 884 F.2d 335, 340 (8th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. Monsanto Chem. Co., 770 F.2d 719,
recognizing that pursuant to the business judgment rule the decisions of business professionals on the board of directors should be presumed valid recognizing that courts have no business telling companies how to make personnel decisions which may be objectively or subjectively based holding that this courts review of board decisions is limited to final orders or final decisions holding that under praprotnik city manager had final policymaking authority regarding personnel decision despite city charters command that all personnel decisions be made according to merit and fitness recognizing that decisions of other courts that have examined these questions are relevant