more, are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” McKeon v. Vaicaitis, Schorr, Richards, et al., 785 F.Supp. 965, 968 (M.D.Fla.1992) (citing Grigsby v. Reynolds Metals Co., 821 F.2d 590, 597 (11th Cir.1987)). Plaintiffs conclusory allegations of discrimination, without more, “are not sufficient to raise an inference of pretext or intentional discrimination where [the Village] has offered such extensive evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.” Grigsby, at 597. In addition, the fact that Plaintiff claims that her performance was adequate and that she believes that she was not responsible for the errors in question, is irrelevant to whether Defendant held those beliefs. See Gustovich v. AT & T Communications, Inc., 972 F.2d 845, 848 (7th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Williams Elec., Inc., 856 F.2d
holding that there is nothing arbitrary or capricious about the requirement holding that an employeess selfserving statements about his ability  are insufficient to contradict an employers negative assessment of that ability such statements may create a material dispute about the employees ability but do nothing to create a dispute about the employers honesty  do nothing in other words to establish that the proffered reason is a pretext for discrimination holding that employers report to state employment agency providing a reason for termination that was different than employers proffered reason did not create a genuine and material issue of fact as to pretext particularly when evidence showed the inaccurate reporting benefitted employee holding that plaintiff can show pretext by demonstrating that an employers proffered reason for an adverse employment action has no basis in fact holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact