Q. Who was he talking to? A. He was just in passing and talking to somebody that was in the room. We were in cubicle scenario and I was sitting down. Q. As you sit here today, do you have any understanding that he had retaliatory animus against you? A. I don’t know. Q. Did you and David Fey get along okay when you worked together. A. I think we got along and we were cordial. (PI. Dep. 84:2-25.) This random comment from Fey, not directed at Plaintiff, made at some unknown point in time, with no apparent or evident connection to the adverse employment decision, is a stray remark that does not give rise to an inference that racial animus negatively impacted Fey’s rating of Plaintiff for the Project Manager position. See Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1438-39 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Peters v. Shamrock Foods Co., 262 Fed.Appx.
holding that stray remark by decisionmaker referring to youth of employee promoted instead of age discrimination plaintiff was insufficient to prove the employer relied on illegitimate agerelated criteria holding plaintiff failed to raise inference of discrimination where only evidence plaintiff adduced was fact that decisionmaker was different race 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 alleged reference to national origin by nondecisionmaker six months prior to plaintiffs termination was the kind of isolated stray remark insufficient without more to raise an inference of discrimination and defeat summary judgment holding that repeated remarks about need to bring in new blood or young blood by one of the decisionmakers were not stray remarks and may permit inference of discrimination