718, 725 (8th Cir.2001) (employer’s statement that “[t]wenty years is too long. You should have moved five years ago[,]” was not direct evidence of age discrimination absent showing that length of tenure was being used as a proxy to accomplish age discrimination). Rather, for the Board’s 2010 discussion to constitute direct evidence of age discrimination, Dunn would need to show that the Board used the term “retire” as a proxy for age to articulate a discriminatory attitude. Scott, 182 Fed.Appx. at 526; Erickson, 271 F.3d at 725. Dunn has made no such showing, but is asking for this Court to speculate and thereby to infer the existence of direct evidence based on the term “retire.” The Board’s discussion does not directly reflect a discriminatory attitude. Erickson, 271 F.3d at 725 (<HOLDING>). Even if the Board had expressed a
holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent holding that employers statement was not direct evidence where accepting statement as evidence of age animus depended on an inference holding that a prior inconsistent statement was admissible and the defendant failed to ask for a limiting instruction that the jury could not use the statement as substantive evidence holding that the statement at your age i dont believe you could pass the test is not direct evidence of age discrimination