Additionally, the Court believes that Galambos has presented evidence which creates a factual dispute as to whether Scales put him on probation and promulgated the Plan in order to set him up for discharge. Galambos, who had been awarded for his performance several times during his eighteen year tenure as Area Service Manager, stated during his deposition that it would have been impossible for him to meet all five of the Plan’s that a trier of fact reasonably could infer that after Galambos’s heart attack, which pointed up the physical vulnerability of this fifty-one year old employee, Scales created an opportunity to discharge the aging Galambos and replace him with someone substantially younger. See Kells v. Sinclair Buick-GMC Truck, Inc., 210 F.3d 827, 835 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). For the foregoing reasons, the Court shall
holding that evidence of overt discrimination coupled with a showing that the employer had falsely stated that an outside consultant had made the termination decision were adequate to raise an inference of illegal age discrimination holding age discrimination claim barred holding that retaining employees comparable in age to the plaintiff weakened an inference of discrimination in employment termination case 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 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