to obstruct the ability of a commercial enterprise to make necessary adjustments in the face of economic challenges.” See Birkbeck v. Marvel Lighting Corp., 30 F.3d 507, 513 (4th Cir.1994). Neither was it designed to prevent leaders in the public sector from achieving the mix of employee expertise that will best fulfill an agency’s goals. B. Walker has thus proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the termination decision. Appellants can meet their burden of proving pretext either by showing that Walker’s explanation is “unworthy of credence” or by offering other forms of circumstantial evidence sufficiently probative of age discrimination. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089; Dugan v. Albemarle County Sch. Bd., 293 F.3d 716, 721 (4th Cir 309, 314 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Also, when evaluating alleged age animus, we
holding that the statement that there comes a time when we have to make way for younger people is insufficient to create any inference of age bias because it is a stray remark which merely reflects a fact of life holding that a single implicit reference to the email in which the complaint makes no explicit reference to nor does it quote at all from is insufficient to establish that the email was incorporated by reference into the complaint holding that the reference to needing younger blood was insufficiently probative of age bias holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct holding that the dissipation of alcohol from a persons blood stream constitutes a sufficient exigency to justify a warrantless blood draw