her burden of rebutting [the defendants’] proffered nondiscriminatory reason for [promoting others instead of Kearney].” Ferraro v. Kellwood Co., 440 F.3d 96, 100 (2d Cir.2006). Defendants offered evidence explaining that candidates for promotion, known to committee members from their work with the candidates, were selected based on perceived superiority in one or more of six specific criteria, independent of age. This uncontroverted evidence justified summary judgment. Kearney does not point to any evidence sufficient to create a genuine factual question as to whether the defendants’ explanation is a pretext for discrimination. That some of the candidates had blemishes on their redore! of that Kearney feels that the selection process should have produced a di n. 6 (7th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). Finally, we uphold the district court’s
holding that the rejection of an adea claim necessitates the rejection of a  1983 agediscrimination claim holding that a district courts rejection of an argument for an inappropriate reason was error holding that presentation of a claim to an executor and the executors rejection of the claim is not jurisdictional but a matter of abatement only holding that directing a verdict for employer on claim for willful violation of adea was harmless error because given jurys rejection of underlying adea claim it could noi have found willful violation of adea recognizing such a claim under  1983