retirement “popped up in the conversation periodically” with Brent Bott. Id. at 243-244. Bott’s questions began around 2006-2007 and occurred approximately four times a year. Id. at 244 (Plaintiff and Bott would talk about once a month or every six weeks and it would come up about every three times they talked). Plaintiff testified that to all of these inquires he always responded that he enjoyed his job and had no plans to retire. PI. Resp. at 10. As an initial matter, the Court has not been presented with any evidence that Domzalski or Bott had any input in the decision to terminate Plaintiffs contract. Accordingly, because they are not decision-makers, their statements cannot constitute evidence of age di 2167, 2016 WL 3640692, at *9 18179, at *15-16 (S.D.Ohio Feb. 3, 2010) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 515 Fed.Appx. 561 (6th Cir.2013);
holding that although there was evidence of discrimination by the employer based on race there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the employer had constructively discharged the plaintiff holding that because the plaintiff no longer managed others and had other job responsibilities reduced there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that he had been constructively discharged holding that the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts in his complaint to state a claim for wrongful discharge where he alleged he was discharged due to his political affiliation and activities holding in the alternative that plaintiff failed to proffer sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that but for plaintiffs age he would not have been constructively discharged where plaintiff was asked on more than one occasion when he was going to retire emphasis in original holding that plaintiff who was not of retirement age and comparator who was of retirement age were not similarly situated where comparator was allowed to voluntarily retire while plaintiff was terminated