presence would adversely effect the Wheelersburg store’s business, for example, does not compel the conclusion that Newman sought to have Johnson removed from the position of comanager. Deriving this purported desire from Newman’s comment requires the inferential step of concluding that because Newman held this belief, he would want to have Johnson’s employment terminated. Similarly, the comments about Johnson’s initiative and intelligence would support a finding of racial discrimination only if a factfinder were to infer that Newman and Noyes believed that Johnson lacked these traits because of his race. The need to draw such inferences prevents these remarks from constituting direct evidence of discrimination. Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078, 1081 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). We therefore conclude that Johnson has failed
holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference holding that the statement at your age i dont believe you could pass the test is not direct evidence of age discrimination holding age discrimination claim barred holding that the defendants comment that the plaintiffs upcoming fiftyfifth birthday was a cause for concern was too ambiguous to give rise to an inference of age discrimination and therefore was not direct evidence holding that employers statement was not direct evidence where accepting statement as evidence of age animus depended on an inference