sixty-one.” (Comply 25.) Plaintiff contends that he was “intentionally termi nated by the Defendant because of his age.” (ComplA 27.) Plaintiff also contends that “[he] was terminated by [Defendant] fifteen days following his return to work, and he was replaced by a significantly younger employee.” (Comply 36.) Plaintiff further contends that he is entitled to liquidated damages for Defendant’s “willful violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment .Act.” (Compl.f 29.) Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a claim of age discrimination under the ADEA. In support of its motion to dismiss, Defendant relies heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Proud v. Stone, 945 F.2d 796, 797 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Defendant suggests that this court extend the
holding that where the individual who fired the plaintiff is the same individual who hired him less than six months earlier with full knowledge of his age a strong inference exists that discrimination was not a determining factor for the adverse action taken by the employer holding that a prima facie case for discrimination requires the plaintiff to show that 1 he belongs to the protected age group 2 his job performance was satisfactory 3 adverse employment action was taken against him  in 4  circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination  holding that to establish a causal connection plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him knew of the employees protected activity holding in the title vii context that the plaintiff must show that the individual who took adverse action against him know of the employees plaintiffs protected activity holding that if the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of age discrimination the employer must show that the discharge was based on reasonable factors other than age  and if the employer meets that burden the plaintiff must show that age was a determining factor in the discharge