decision.” Kautz v. Met-Pro Corp., 412 F.3d 463, 467 (3d Cir.2005). Here, Muhammad clearly'made out the first three elements of a prima facie case. He was over 40 years old at the time of his termination, his employment record indicated that he was qualified for his position, and he was subject to the adverse employment action of termination. We will therefore confine our analysis of burden-shifting under McDonnell Douglas to the fourth element. As to the final element of a prima facie case, Muhammad presented evidence indicating that the employees who took over his duties were 13 and 22 years younger than him, and that the remaining employees in the Operations Department were also “sufficiently younger.” See Showalter v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 190 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). This was' sufficient. See id. As to the next
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 the fourth prong of a prima facie age discrimination case was satisfied where plaintiff was replaced by two individuals  one who was four years younger than plaintiff and the other who was ten years younger 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 that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that in a reduction in force suit age differences of eight and 16 years are sufficient to satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case