Collier, 66 F.3d at 889; DeLuca v. Winer Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 793, 797 (7th Cir.1995). Driskell, lacking any direct evidence of discrimination, seeks to prove Continental’s discriminatory intent by use of the McDonnell Douglas framework. A Plaintiffs Prima Facie Case When a case involves an employer’s reduction in force (RIF), an ADEA plaintiff makes out her prima facie case by showing that: (1) she was in the protected age group, (2) she was performing to his employer’s legitimate expectations, (3) she was discharged, and (4) substantially younger employees were treated more favorably. See Collier, 66 F.3d at 889; Roper v. Peabody Coal Co., 47 F.3d 925, 926 (7th Cir.1995); see also O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., — U.S. —, —, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 1310, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996) (<HOLDING>). Driskell has unquestionably made out a prima
holding that in criminal case a continuous chain of custody need not be proven as long as the evidence as a whole establishes that it is more probable than not that the object introduced is the same as that seized holding that the court may not overturn the administrative law judges factual findings as long as they are supported by competent substantial evidence holding that the terms arbitration or arbitrate need not be used as long as binding review by a third party is clearly the intention of the parties holding that the younger employees need not be outside the protected class as long as they are substantially younger than the plaintiff holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration