See Rowan v. Lockheed Martin Energy Sys., Inc., 360 F.3d 544, 550 (6th Cir.2004). With regard to Chittaro and Caporella, there is no evidence that the inquiries were anything other than just that—inquiries. There is no indication that the questions suggested Plaintiff ought to retire, or that they were meant to pressure Plaintiff into retiring. Moreover, none of the inquiries incorporated any actual reference to Plaintiffs age. Mere inquiries, without more, are insufficient to establish an inference of discrimination. Woythal v. Tex-Tenn Corp., 112 F.3d 243, 246-247 (6th Cir.1997) (distinguishing between friendly or mere inquiries versus questions that amounted to pressure or suggestions to retire); Sander v. Gray Television Grp., Inc., 478 Fed.Appx. 256, 265 (6th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No.
holding that employers report to state employment agency providing a reason for termination that was different than employers proffered reason did not create a genuine and material issue of fact as to pretext particularly when evidence showed the inaccurate reporting benefitted employee holding that drugrelated misconduct is a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination holding that plaintiff failed to show genuine issue of material fact on equitable estoppel claim holding after considering the plaintiffs evidence of pretext that the determination whether the plaintiffs speech was the motivating factor in his discharge turns on a genuine issue of material fact holding that questions about employees impending retirement failed to rebut the employers nondiscriminatory reason for termination particularly considering employee admitted that he did not know whether questions were for a legitimate purpose in concluding overall that the plaintiff had not established a genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext