The defendant explained that the plaintiff was fired for poor job performance, and record showed that the plaintiff was not performing her job according to the defendant's legitimate expectations, where: (1) the defendant had received numerous complaints about the plaintiff's confrontational management style; (2) the complaints had been confirmed by an independent consulting firm, which ultimately recommended that the plaintiff be fired; and (3) the plaintiff had resisted the defendant's efforts to improve her job performance. The fact that the plaintiff's year-end evaluation indicated satisfactory performance in certain areas or that the plaintiff received the district-wide 3 percent cost of living raise did not require different result.