he offered no competent summary judgment evidence to support that he was either “replaced” within the meaning of the TCHRA or that his replacement was “significantly younger” than he. We disagree. A terminated employee is replaced when the terminated employee’s position is filled by another person and that person is assigned the terminated employ ee’s former job duties. Russo v. Smith Int’l, Inc., 93 S.W.3d 428, 435-36 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, pet. denied). For an inference of age discrimination to be drawn, the replacement cannot be “insignificantly younger” than the plaintiff. O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 313, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996); see Hartis v. Mason & Hanger Corp., 7 S.W.3d 700, 705 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Grosjean v. First Energy Corp., 349
holding that threeyear difference from 49 to 46 years old was insufficient to establish fourth requirement of prima facie case holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that in a reduction in force suit age differences of eight and 16 years are sufficient to satisfy the fourth element of a prima facie case holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1