supporting the motion are not credible, L & L Started Pullets, Inc. v. Gourdine, 762 F.2d 1, 3 (2d Cir.1985), or “upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading.” Rule 56(e), F.R. Civ. P. Dr. Schachner’s religious discrimination claim does not meet the de minimus standard. Her argument is undermined by the fact that, in searching for anesthesiologists to join Drs. Epstein and Berenstein, defendants offered employment to Dr. Margaret Eckstein, an even stricter observer of the Jewish Sabbath than Dr. Schachner. (Pl.’s Mem. of Law at 16). Whereas Dr. Schachner was willing to work on the Sabbath and submitted to on-call duty on Saturdays, Dr. Eckstein refused to do so. NYU accommodated Dr. Eckstein’s religious 1995 WL 469704 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 1995) (Patterson, J.) (<HOLDING>). Seeking to staunch the flow of life force
holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference holding that a prima facie case for discrimination requires the plaintiff to show that 1 he belongs to the protected age group 2 his job performance was satisfactory 3 adverse employment action was taken against him  in 4  circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination  holding age discrimination claim barred holding that the defendants comment that the plaintiffs upcoming fiftyfifth birthday was a cause for concern was too ambiguous to give rise to an inference of age discrimination and therefore was not direct evidence holding in age discrimination case that plaintiffs dismissal did not give rise to an inference of discrimination when job was subsequently offered to an older individual