view of “old-timers” held irrelevant and unduly prejudicial); see also Gagne v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co., 881 F.2d 309, 314 (6th Cir.1989) (isolated remark by supervisor that he “needed younger blood” was irrelevant, prejudicial, and insufficient to prove age discrimination), overruled on other grounds by St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993); Schrand v. Fed. Pac. Electric Co., 851 F.2d 152, 155-56 (6th Cir.1988) (comments that employees were “too old” held irrelevant and unduly prejudicial); McLaurin v. Fischer, 768 F.2d 98, 104 (1985) (isolated statement regarding the “young men whom we would like to attract” held irrelevant to issue of age discrimination); Bigelow v. ANR Pipeline Co., 121 F.3d 707, 1997 WL 428964, *5 (6th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Boyle v. Mannesmann Demag Corp., 991 F.2d
holding that based upon discrepancies in defendants articulated basis for discrimination reasonable juror could infer that these were pretextual and developed over time to counter evidence suggesting discrimination holding that the factfinder may infer discrimination from the falsity of the employers explanation holding that a reasonable juror could infer that the shifting and inconsistent explanations given by the employer at trial were pretextual developed over time to counter the evidence suggesting discrimination holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination holding that a reasonable juror could not infer discrimination based on a supervisors comments that the company needed to get rid of its old fart pilots