serious questions about the validity of defendant’s evaluation method: that they were applied retroactively to dimmish her productivity; that they did not always enforce them against other young male employees; and that after plaintiffs termination defendant no longer utilized the same standards. Similarly, with regard to plaintiffs purported interpersonal problems, she has effectively shown that she suffered from treatment that was not applied to the young male salespersons and that many of defendant’s complaints about insubordination arise in the context of disputes over plaintiffs work habits. Accordingly, plaintiff has raised an inference of discrimination sufficient to establish a prima facie ease of discrimination under Title VII and the ADEA. See, e.g., Gallo, 22 F.3d at 1227 (<HOLDING>). D. Plaintiff’s Prima Facie Case of
holding that employee recommending someone for hire and bringing problems with apprentice employees to the attention of his superior is nothing more than what the employer would expect from experienced employees recognizing suit for discriminatory failure to hire when the defendant employer failed to hire another corporation as an independent contractor and a potential employee of the rejected corporation brought suit directly against the defendant employer holding plaintiff employee terminated in purported corporate downsizing establishes inference of discrimination where employer chooses to reassign or hire several younger employees with less experience than plaintiff holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice holding plaintiff failed to raise inference of discrimination where only evidence plaintiff adduced was fact that decisionmaker was different race