Ex. 16 (Memorandum from Barbara Birchette to Joyce Dews regarding "RIF Ranking” dated June 13, 1996). Defendant counters "that the evaluation of three teachers [who were over the age of 50] is statistically too small to have any meaning, particularly in light of the actual situation at the business academy.” Defendant's Reply to Plaintiffs Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.’s Reply”) at 4. Defendant notes that regarding the business education teachers, a 41 year old and a 50 year old were rated higher than a 35 year old, a 62 year old, and a 53 year old. Id. at 4. The Court agrees with defendant that this evidence is not highly probative and does not establish that there was discriminatory animus towards older employees in general. See Simpson, 823 F.2d at 942, 943 (<HOLDING>); Goss, 942 F.Supp. at 665 (rejecting
holding that after court dismissed case at plaintiffs request notwithstanding the fact that jury had deliberated upon the case and indicated that it had reached a verdict there was no case pending in court on which a verdict could be predicated and the information which the judge got from an inspection of the petition handed to him by the foreman of the jury was information which he received as an individual and not as a judge of the court and further holding that despite violation of defendants right to receive the verdict that was purportedly reached the writing incorporated in the bill of exceptions as a verdict of the jury was in law no verdict because it was not received in court and published as required by law and was instead entirely extraneous and extrajudicial holding that plaintiffs statistics regarding the average age  of employees retained and fired during the period immediately preceding and following his termination    even if arguably supporting an inference of discrimination to establish a prima facie case  had insufficient probative value to support a jury verdict on the ultimate question of discrimination this was due in part because the plaintiff used the departure of only seventeen people as a basis for his statistical argument which the court concluded was suspect furthermore the plaintiff failed to provide the relative qualifications of those hired and the positions to which they were assigned and he neglected vital information regarding the pool of applicants and whether for example qualified older employees were available or applied for those jobs holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job holding that a general motion for judgment of acquittal which asserted without explanation or argument that the state had failed to prove a prima facie case of the crime charged in the indictment was insufficient to preserve for appeal the specific argument that the state had failed to prove the age of the victim to support a conviction for sexual battery of a child under the age of eleven 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