a material issue of fact regarding plaintiffs discrimination claims. The court is persuaded that no rational factfinder could base a finding of pretext on any of the above assertions, and finds them to be unrelated events, inconsequential facts and opinions, or attenuated inferences. The ADEA does not require an employer to give special treatment to older workers to the disadvantage of junior employees; it requires only that older workers be treated fairly. See Jones v. Unisys Corp., 54 F.3d 624, 630 n. 6 (10th Cir.1995). The evidence overwhelmingly supports the defendant’s proffered reasons for the plaintiffs termination, and the plaintiffs meager evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to pretext. Lawmaster v. Ward, 125 F.3d 1341, 1347 (10th Cir.1997)(<HOLDING>) Accordingly, the court finds summary judgment
holding that the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence is insufficient to create a dispute of fact that is genuine holding that the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact holding that on a motion for summary judgment the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient and there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if there is a genuine dispute about a material fact holding that a speculative affidavit which contained mere conjecture was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact for trial