v. KwangSung Am. Corp., 798 F.Supp.2d 1291, 1297-98 (M.D.Ala.2011) (decisionmaker’s statement that he was going to replace employee with a “younger Korean” was direct evidence of discrimination). Here, it is undisputed that Eppard never called Dunn “old,” never mentioned Dunn’s age, and never told him that the School District wanted someone younger to fill his position. Doc. 50 at ¶¶ 41, 42; Doc. 41-4 at 3-4, 12, 17. Eppard’s calling Brittany and Diehm young is more like the statements in Buchholz and Merrick than the statements in Kneibert, Lindsey, and Newsome. As for Eppard’s telling Dunn that it was “time for a change,” the Eighth Circuit in Erickson held that similar statements were “legitimate business concerns” rather than direct evidence of age discrimination. 271 F.3d at 725 (<HOLDING>). In sum, although the statements from Eppard
holding that sixmonthold info about a firearm was not stale holding that direct evidence of defendants dna found at the scene was direct evidence merely of a circumstance that suggested his participation in the burglary and theft but was not direct evidence of his participation in the burglary holding that even when employee was driving employers vehicle employee was not acting within the scope of his employment absent evidence that he had undertaken a special mission at his employers direction holding that employers statements to plaintiff that he was stale set in his ways and that the company needed a new focus were not direct evidence holding that false statements in a labor dispute that were injurious to employers reputation were not preempted