by Patrick Malarkey, who is approximately 14 years younger than Plaintiff, and second, by Angela Traugh, who is approximately 9 years younger than Plaintiff. (PI. Facts ¶¶ 100— 103; PI. Ex. A; PI. Ex. D, p. 21). “[T]o satisfy the sufficiently younger standard, ‘there is no particular age different that must be shown, but ... courts have held ... that a five year difference can be sufficient [while] ... a one year difference cannot.’ ” Monaco v. Am. Gen. Assurance Co., 359 F.3d 296, 307 (3d Cir.2004) (citing Showalter v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 190 F.3d 231, 236 (3d Cir.1999)). The age differences shown here, of 14 and 9 years, are sufficient for establishing a prima facie case. See O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 312, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724,
holding inference is warranted when a 67 year old is replaced by a 59 year old holding that when a 56year old employee was replaced by a 40year old employee this qualified as someone substantially younger for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case holding when an employee was temporarily replaced by a person who was 10 years younger and permanently replaced by a person four years younger this was sufficient for the prima facie case holding prima facie case established where employer fired fiftytwo year old accountant pursuant to rif but retained one younger employee in similar position holding that being replaced by someone outside the protected class is not a proper element of the fourth prong because replacement by a substantially younger employee is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination