sufficient evidence for a factfinder to conclude that Sonic’s proffered reasons for terminating him are false. While this does not lead to the automatic conclusion that Sonic’s decision was based on Israel’s age, it does create an “inference” that Sonic might be “cover[ing] up a discriminatory purpose.” Id. at 133, 147, 120 S.Ct. at 2108. Israel offers evidence of a statement made by a member of Sonic’s management that he might be too old to change. Sonic argues that this comment, if even, made, was not made by the decisionmaker in this case and was in December, three months before Israel was terminated, and, therefore, too far-removed from the decision to fire Israel to be considered evidence of ageism. See, e.g., Standard v. A.B.E.L. Serv., Inc., 161 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). However, because it is not clear to this
holding comment that was heard out of context and not necessarily related to employment of plaintiff was not evidence of discrimination holding employees under age discrimination in employment acts adea parallel retaliation provision includes former employees as long as the alleged discrimination is related to or arises out of the employment relationship holding that an isolated comment is not direct evidence of discrimination even if a plaintiff interpreted it as motivated by a discriminatory animus holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify holding in the discrimination context that a plaintiff may challenge incidents which occurred outside the statute of limitations period if the various acts of discrimination constitute a continuing pattern of discrimination