the Supreme Court did not explicitly overrule our precedent in applying the McDonnell Douglas test to ADEA cases involving circumstantial evidence, we review East’s claims under both McDonnell Douglas and Gross. See Gandara v. Bennett, 528 F.3d 823, 829 (11th Cir.2008) (“we are bound by the holdings of earlier panels unless and until they are clearly overruled en banc or by the Supreme Court”). Applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing he was: (1) a member of the protected class; (2) qualified for his current position; (3) subject to adverse employment action; and (4) treated less favorable than any younger, similarly situated employee. Zaben v. Air Prods. & Chems., Inc., 129 F.3d 1453, 1457 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers
holding that being replaced by someone outside the protected class is not a proper element of the fourth prong because replacement by a substantially younger employee is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination holding that replacement by someone outside the protected group is required to make a prima facie age discrimination case 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 that to make out the fourth element of a prima facie case of sex discrimination plaintiff must prove that males remained in similar positions and similarly for age discrimination that she was otherwise discharged because of her age holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive