testified to Mr. Bell stating that “it was Steve [Wilkins’] department and that he was able to make decisions for that department.” Thus, Mr. Wilkins was Ms. Meier’s immediate supervisor and allegedly had the authority to hire and fire his subordinates. In Holmes v. Marriott Corp., 881 F.Supp. 691, 708 (S.D.Iowa 1993), then Magistrate Judge Bennett held that the defendant’s argument that comments attributed to someone without “full and final authority” to make the adverse employment decision “presents too truncated a view of workplace personnel decisions and is at odds with the reality of today’s workplace where important personnel decisions often represent the collective judgment of several individuals.”. See also Piantanida v. Wyman Ctr., Inc., 927 F.Supp. 1226, 1240 (W.D.Mo.1996) (<HOLDING>); Moore v. Alabama State Univ., 980 F.Supp. 426
holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable holding that an isolated remark made by the plaintiffs supervisor lacked a sufficient nexus to the plaintiffs termination several months later holding hispanic supervisor will understand you better to be stray remark holding superiors statement a stray remark because another employee was the plaintiffs immediate supervisor and had the authority to hire and fire  subordinates