context: At the second step of the McDonnell Douglas framework, defendant offers the same qualifications-based justification as discussed in Part II.B, supra, and as in the race discrimination context, this justification is sufficient. Unlike Ms. Simpson's race discrimination claim, however, at the final stage of the McDonnell Douglas analysis her age discrimination claim is supported by evidence sufficient to permit an inference that defendant's proffered explanation is pretextual. Klafehn's statements were not "direct" in the sense that they applied specifically to Ms. Simpson or to this position specifically because there were directed at hiring decisions more generally. They may, however, support an inference of age-based discrimination.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 930 F.2d 1434, 1439
citation_a.parenthetical: sexist comments reflecting the supervisor's stereotypical images of men and women raised a genuine issue of fact with respect to pretext
citation_a.sentence: See Threadgill v. Spellings, 377 F.Supp.2d 158, 164-66 (D.D.C.2005) (holding that repeated remarks about need to bring in “new blood” or “young blood” by one of the decision-makers were not “stray remarks” and may permit inference of discrimination); see also Lindahl v. Air France, 930 F.2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir.1991) (sexist comments reflecting the supervisor’s stereotypical images of men and women raised a genuine issue of fact with respect to pretext); Lindemann & Gross-man, 1 Employment Discrimination Law 28.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 377 F.Supp.2d 158, 164-66
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that repeated remarks about need to bring in "new blood" or "young blood" by one of the decision-makers were not "stray remarks" and may permit inference of discrimination
citation_b.sentence: See Threadgill v. Spellings, 377 F.Supp.2d 158, 164-66 (D.D.C.2005) (holding that repeated remarks about need to bring in “new blood” or “young blood” by one of the decision-makers were not “stray remarks” and may permit inference of discrimination); see also Lindahl v. Air France, 930 F.2d 1434, 1439 (9th Cir.1991) (sexist comments reflecting the supervisor’s stereotypical images of men and women raised a genuine issue of fact with respect to pretext); Lindemann & Gross-man, 1 Employment Discrimination Law 28.