that it had not discriminated against Brummett, including the fact that Innovex had fired a substantially younger employee at the same time for violations of the same company policy. Finally, the district court dismissed as “stray remarks” several age-related comments Innovex employees allegedly made to Brummett, concluding that they were either too ambiguous to be probative or had been made by individuals without authority or influence over Innovex’s decision to terminate Brummett’s employment. See, e.g, Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins. Co., 212 F.3d 296, 304 (5th Cir.2000) (“In order for an age-based comment to be probative of an employer’s discriminatory intent, it must be direct and unambiguous____”); Krystek v. University of Southern Mississippi, 164 F.3d 251, 256 (5th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Concluding that Brummett was thus unable to
recognizing that stray remarks are insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination and concluding that a comment by the decisionmaker that he selected a candidate for a promotion because the candidate was a bright intelligent knowledgeable young man was a stray remark that did not raise an inference of age discrimination holding that stray remarks made almost two years prior to employment action was outdated and lacking in apparent probative value holding that a comment made by a person who played no role in the employment decision was a stray remark that lacked any probative value as a matter of law holding managers discriminatory remark indicative of age bias where buttressed by other evidence of discrimination and thus remark was not an isolated comment holding hispanic supervisor will understand you better to be stray remark