the ADEA, an employer may not “discharge any individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1). The burden-shifting analysis established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), is the appropriate analysis for summary judgment motions in cases alleging age discrimination where, as here, there is no direct evidence of discrimination. Torre v. Casio, Inc., 42 F.3d 825, 829 (3d Cir. 1994). To show an inference of age discrimination the plaintiff must show that he “lost out because of his age.” O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 312, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Pivirotto v. Innovative Systems, Inc., 191
holding that the relevant issue is whether the evidence could support a reasonable factfinders conclusion that a discriminatory animus served as the basis for the employers decision holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding that remarks made by decisionmakers could be viewed as reflecting discriminatory animus holding in title vii case that the span of time between an employers raciallycharged remarks and the decision to fire the plaintiff is relevant to a determination of whether discriminatory animus motivated the firing holding that  direct evidence is evidence showing a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the challenged decision sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action 