Plaintiff and none of whom were terminated. (PI. Facts ¶¶ 108-109; PI. Ex. A, Enclosure # 2). But a reasonable factfinder could not conclude based on these facts alone that Fisher acted with invidious purpose. There is no showing that the younger store managers had received the same degree of negative reviews as had Plaintiff — i.e., that they were “similarly situated” — nor that Januus had been qualified for his job. There are no facts whatsoever about the abilities or performance of these store managers; Plaintiffs table merely provides the ages of the other store managers under Fisher’s control and whether or not they were terminated. This sort of raw data does not support a finding invidious intent. See Ezold v. Wolf, Block Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 542-43 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs description of the discriminatory
holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding that the source of the federal funds was not a relevant factor in determining the number of violations holding that the relevant time of inquiry is the date of the filing of the complaint holding raw numerical comparisons between the number of male and female partners when not accompanied by any analysis of either the qualified applicant pool or the flow of qualified candidates over a relevant period of time was not relevant to a showing of pretext holding that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity