Brown, 113 F.3d at 142). As we have noted, it is not unlawful for an employer to make “employment decisions based upon poor job performance, erroneous evaluations, personal conflicts between employees, or even unsound business practices,” Hill, 123 F.3d at 1120, as long as these decisions are not the result of discrimination based on an employee’s membership in a protected class. Appellánts have not produced any evidence that Affiant made changes to the lay-off lists based on employee age. Finally, appellants identify several comments and written statements as evidence of pretext. However, all of this evidence is too remote in time from the layoffs of Evers and Dexter to be probative. See EEOC v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 191 F.3d 948, 953 (8th Cir.1999); Walton, 167 F.3d at 428 (<HOLDING>). None of these comments or statements were
holding that stray remark by decisionmaker referring to youth of employee promoted instead of age discrimination plaintiff was insufficient to prove the employer relied on illegitimate agerelated criteria holding managers discriminatory remark indicative of age bias where buttressed by other evidence of discrimination and thus remark was not an isolated comment holding that discriminatory event which took place three years before was too remote holding that a remark by a decisionmaker made two years before termination was too remote in time to support a finding of pretext for intentional discrimination holding that the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate retaliation for activities that occurred two years prior to the termination