With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". has not created a genuine issue of material fact to dispute the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons the Foundation advances for her termination. In order to avoid summary judgment, the burden is on Anderson to bring admissible evidence to discredit the Foundation’s stated reason for her termination. Although Anderson conclusorily denies some of the performance-related charges against her, this is insufficient to defeat summary judgment. Anderson submits no evidence to rebut the Foundation’s performance-related charges. She offers only her own, conclusory, self-assessment, which the Fifth Circuit has held is insufficient to defeat summary judgment in the employment law context. See Grimes v. Texas Dept. of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, 102 F.3d 137, 139-40 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted); see also Molnar v. Ebasco

A: holding that unsubstantiated assertions are not competent summary judgment evidence
B: holding that unsubstantiated representations will not withstand summary judgment
C: holding that unverified pleadings do not constitute competent summary judgment evidence
D: holding that defendants assertions of workproduct were not supported by competent evidence
A.