of Cohilas making an ageist remark in connection with the decisionmaking process itself, East has not established direct evidence of Cohilas’s discriminatory intent. See Standard, 161 F.3d at 1330. B. Circumstantial Evidence The Supreme Court in Gross v. FBL Fin. Sens., Inc. held that to establish a disparate-treatment claim under the ADEA, a “plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence ... that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the challenged employer decision.” 557 U.S. 167, 129 S.Ct. 2343, 2351, 174 L.Ed.2d 119 (2009); see also Mora, 597 F.3d at 1204 (noting, in our only published opinion interpreting Gross, that “an ADEA plaintiff must establish ‘but for’ causality ... the employer either acted ‘because of the plaintiffs age or it did not d 1313, 1316 (11th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Once a plaintiff establishes a prima fa-cie
recognizing in a title vii case that for the fourth element of the prima facie case the individuals seeking relief must demonstrate at the least that they are similarly situated to those employees allegedly receiving more favorable treatment in all material respects holding that fourth element of a prima facie case is satisfied when the employees who were more favorably treated were situated similarly to the plaintiff holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case holding that a plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to show valid comparators and presented no other circumstantial evidence of discrimination holding that replacement by someone outside the protected group is required to make a prima facie age discrimination case