failed to prove as much here and the jury found that he had failed. The majority should not relieve Litton of his burden, and it certainly should not grant him victory in the face of a jury verdict finding that he never proved that he su 4, 988 (9th Cir.2007) (finding that, in a disability discrimination case, “an employee bears the ultimate burden of proving that he [wa]s ... discriminated against ‘because of' [his] disability^]” (emphasis added)); Collado v. United Parcel Serv., Co., 419 F.3d 1143, 1150-51 (11th Cir.2005) (recognizing that Aiken's "ultimate question of discrimination vel non " formulation required asking "whether the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff.” (emphasis added)); Palasota v. Haggar Clothing Co., 342 F.3d 569, 574 (5th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Coffey v. Dobbs In'l Servs., Inc., 170 F.3d
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 holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that if the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of age discrimination the employer must show that the discharge was based on reasonable factors other than age  and if the employer meets that burden the plaintiff must show that age was a determining factor in the discharge holding in an age discrimination case that even though a plaintiff need not revisit his prima facie case after a trial on the merits he still must show that he has met his ultimate burden of proving that the employer terminated him because of age emphasis added 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 