526 (6th Cir.2006) (explaining that “retire” is not synonymous with “age,” and holding that without more, employer’s statement that' plaintiff should “retire and make everybody happy” was not direct evidence of age discrimination); Erickson v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 271 y attitude during the 2010 discussion, Dunn has failed to show a specific link between the Board’s attitude and its decision to nonrenew his contract. After all, not only was there an almost two-year gap between the Board’s 2010 discussion and the 2012 nonrenewal, but the Board rehired Dunn twice during this period despite him being at least sixty years old. Given these circumstances, any link between the 2010 discussion and the 2012 nonrenewal is too attenuated to constitute direct evidence. See Bone, 686 F.3d at 954 (<HOLDING>); Haigh v. Gelita USA, Inc., 632 F.3d 464, 470
holding that in order to raise prejudicial comments of trial court on appeal defendant must object to comments when made and move for a mistrial holding that a supervisors repeated comments to an employee that the supervisor wanted to have sex with the employees fifteenyearold daughter were extremely severe because the comments were significantly more offensive than the typical crass comments we have found to be insufficient to constitute harassment in other cases holding that comments relating to age made some three to fifteen or more years prior to plaintiffs discharge were not relevant to show that he was fired because of his age holding that comments made at least four months before the adverse employment action were not connected to the decisionmaking process and thus were not direct evidence of age discrimination holding that supervisors reactions to comments did not constitute direct evidence of age discrimination where comments were made six months prior to plaintiffs discharge and were unconnected to the discharge decision