competent to perform the services required.” 43 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 955(a) (West). To prevail on a claim of intentional discrimination under the ADEA or the PHRA, “a plaintiff must show that his or her age ‘actually motivated’ or ‘had a determinative influence on’ the employer’s adverse employment decision.” Fasold v. Justice, 409 F.3d 178, 183 (3d Cir.2005) (citations omitted). In the Third Circuit, ADEA and PHRA claims are litigated according to the burden-shifting framework developed in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) for Title VII claims. See Smith v. City of Allentown, 589 F.3d 684, 691 (3d Cir.2009) (approving of the “continued application of the McDonnell Douglas paradigm in age discrimination cases”); Fasold, 409 F.3d at 183-84 (<HOLDING>). First, the plaintiff must establish a prima
holding that adea and phra claims proceed under the mcdonnell douglas framework holding that the phra is construed consistently with interpretations of title vii and applying mcdonnell douglas holding that the mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting framework applies to retaliation claims in the same manner as to discrimination claims holding that mcdonnell douglas burdenshifting approach applies to claims brought under the adea holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework still applies to adea cases postgross