was qualified for the promotion she was seeking; (3) she was denied the promotion; and (4) the position was given to a significantly younger person who had similar or lesser qualifications. Greenberg, supra, 310 N.J.Super. at 198, 708 A.2d at 465. See also Pepe v. Rival Co., 85 F.Supp.2d 349, 365 (D.N.J.1999), aff'd, 254 F.3d 1078 (3d Cir.2001); Kelly v. Bally’s Grand, Inc., 285 N.J.Super. 422, 429, 667 A.2d 355, 359 (App.Div. 1995). Evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case need not persuade the court, when addressing a summary judgment motion, that it will preponderate at trial, but only that it is sufficiently credible that a reasonable factfinder could believe it. See Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1094, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Once a plaintiff has established a prima
holding that the burden of establishing prima facie case of discriminatory treatment may be satisfied by minimal showing recognizing that a plaintiffs burden in establishing a prima facie case is not onerous holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case holding that onemonth temporal proximity was sufficient to establish causation and noting that the prima facie burden in this context is not an onerous one