Opinion ID: 2995305
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Poor-performance rationale.

Text: Olsen argues that Mid-State’s poor- performance rationale has no basis in fact because his personal sales performance improved before his termination. He points to his performance results for the month preceding the month of his termination in which he met over 100% of his personal sales goals for that month./3 The record reveals, however, that for the majority of his tenure as Mauston branch manager, Olsen consistently failed to meet his personal sales goals despite Mid-State’s repeated admonitions to improve his performance. Mid-State likely viewed his one month of exceptional performance as an anomaly rather than an indication that a new era of improved performance had begun. For example, Schaller told Olsen during his first formal review in November 1996 that his first priority should be to improve his sales performance, among other things. In the employee response section of that evaluation, Olsen conceded that his sales performance up to that date had been less than satisfactory, stating that he had been more concerned with subordinate goals and branch goals than [his] own. In the October 1997 evaluation, although commending Olsen for coaching and pushing others to increase their sales, Schaller again told Olsen that he needed to increase personal sales. In the employee response section of this evaluation, Olsen did not dispute Schaller’s assessment of his performance but stated that he would only concern [himself] with improving [branch sales] and encouraging the advancement of his staff. Olsen failed to increase his personal sales that year, reaching less than half of his goal by the year’s end. Mid-State was free to determine that, based on this history, Olsen’s one month of improved performance was not an indication that he would continue to meet its expectations. In Mid-State’s view, one month of sales does not make a salesman, and we are not authorized by Title VII to impose upon the employer a contrary assessment. See Dunn, No. 00- 2958, 2001 WL 898757, at  ([The employer] was entitled to determine that the deficiencies in [the employee’s] performance outweighed [his] accomplishments.) (internal citation omitted). Olsen may be correct in suggesting that one month of exceptional performance would allay the average employer’s performance concerns, but we are not concerned with the average employer. Our only concern at the pretext stage is whether this defendant honestly remained dissatisfied with its employee’s performance. See O’Connor v. DePaul Univ., 123 F.3d 665, 670 (7th Cir. 1997). And Olsen has not presented any evidence that would cause a reasonable factfinder to question whether Mid-State honestly believed its assessment. Moreover, in our many cases discussing the nature of the pretext inquiry, we have stated that it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that his employer’s explanation was based on an inaccurate assessment of its employee’s performance. See, e.g., Adreani v. First Colonial Bankshares Corp., 154 F.3d 389, 398 (7th Cir. 1998); see Walker v. Glickman, 241 F.3d 884, 890 (7th Cir. 2001) ([T]he court’s role is not to determine whether [the employer’s] decision was right, but whether [the employee] presented sufficient evidence that [the employer’s] reason was a lie for the action it took.). The plaintiff in Adreani pointed to his own positive perception of his performance in an attempt to create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext. We rejected his attempt, noting that (even assuming that an employee’s perception of his own performance can be considered objective evidence of his abilities) evidence that shows that an employer incorrectly assessed its employee’s abilities does not shed light on whether the employer is lying about that assessment. Id. at 399. And without proof of a lie, no inference of discriminatory motive can be drawn. See Bell, 232 F.3d at 550 (internal citations omitted). Olsen, like the plaintiff in Adreani, has placed his own assessment of his abilities adjacent to his employer’s and asked us to draw from the apparent incongruity the inference that his employer is lying. An employee’s perception of his own performance, however, cannot tell a reasonable factfinder something about what the employer believed about the employee’s abilities. See Adreani, 154 F.3d at 399.