third criterion, i.e., that a person with authority over the employment decision has made the comment. We find that Hahus’s comments are nonetheless deficient under the remaining Brown factors. Hahus made the first remark sometime within the six months prior to Wallace’s discharge. This comment is neither related to Wallace’s protected class nor is it related to her termination. The word “stupid” is not an epithet or a slur referring to a pregnant woman, it simply denotes a lack of intelligence. That Hahus intended this denotation is borne out by the circumstances prompting this comment—Wallace drew blood to test the level of a drug she had just administered, fully knowing that it would register a “false high.” See EEOC v. Tex. Instruments Inc., 100 F.3d 1173, 1181 (5th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we conclude that' this statement does
holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding superiors statement a stray remark because another employee was the plaintiffs immediate supervisor and had the authority to hire and fire  subordinates holding that statement was stray remark where it was consistent with the context in which it was allegedly made holding that a phrase should be interpreted consistent with the context of the statute in which it is contained holding that a comment made by a person who played no role in the employment decision was a stray remark that lacked any probative value as a matter of law