question is whether plaintiffs main ease contains evidence sufficient to permit the trier of fact to draw an inference that the prohibited motive was a substantial factor in the adverse employment decision. In cases involving a reduction in force, the inquiry is highly fact specific. We illustrate by analyzing two polar hypotheti-eals. In the first, an older maintenance employee is laid off when a company shuts down a plant. The older employee could not prevail on an ADEA claim simply because a younger maintenance employee continued to be employed by the company in a similar plant, no matter how identical their responsibilities. The rationale for granting judgment against the older worker would be that no reasonable trier could find that the shutting down of a plant was motivat r.1995) (<HOLDING>). We emphasize, however, that similarity of
holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of age discrimination based upon a showing that she was a member of the protected group she was qualified and capable of doing her job she was discharged and that her manager called her old woman thus evincing agebased animus sufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent holding age discrimination claim barred holding that to make out the fourth element of a prima facie case of sex discrimination plaintiff must prove that males remained in similar positions and similarly for age discrimination that she was otherwise discharged because of her age holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive holding that if the plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of age discrimination the employer must show that the discharge was based on reasonable factors other than age  and if the employer meets that burden the plaintiff must show that age was a determining factor in the discharge