retirement? Reuman: No, I don’t. Dunn’s Counsel: What was the overall gist of the discussion regarding Mr. Dunn’s retirement? Reuman: I would say that the overall gist was that it was time for him to retire. Doc. 52-7 at 3. Because “retire” is not synonymous with “age,” the Board’s general consensus during the 2010 meeting that it was “time for [Dunn] to retire” is not, standing alone, direct evidence of age discrimination. See Scott v. Potter, 182 Fed.Appx. 5 th Cir.2011) (“We have noted it is unlikely a supervisor would hire an older employee and then discriminate on the basis of age, and such evidence creates a presumption against discrimination.” (quoting Fitzgerald v. Action, Inc., 521 F.3d 867, 877 (8th Cir. 2008))); Ramlet v. E.F. Johnson Co., 507 F.3d 1149, 1153 (8th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Dunn also argues that some of Ep-pard’s
holding that the statement at your age i dont believe you could pass the test is not direct evidence of age discrimination 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 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 a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference