to the plaintiff). In addition, neither of Gallagher’s alleged remarks (“this company is being run by white haired old men waiting to retire, and this has to change” and that he does “not want any employee over 50 years old on his staff’) can be fairly characterized as “ambiguous” or “abstract.” Both remarks on their face strongly suggest that the speaker harbors a bias against older workers. More over, when assessing the relevancy of an allegedly biased remark where the plaintiff presents evidence of multiple discriminatory remarks or other evidence of pretext, we do not view each discriminatory remark in isolation, but are mindful that the remarks buttress one another as well as any other pre-textual evidence supporting an inference of discriminatory animus. Cf. Wells, 58 F.3d at 237 (<HOLDING>). Viewing Gallagher’s remarks in the light most
holding that an isolated derogatory remark did not create an inference of discrimination holding that an isolated remark made by the plaintiffs supervisor lacked a sufficient nexus to the plaintiffs termination several months later holding managers discriminatory remark indicative of age bias where buttressed by other evidence of discrimination and thus remark was not an isolated comment holding that an isolated comment is not direct evidence of discrimination even if a plaintiff interpreted it as motivated by a discriminatory animus holding that a comment made by a person who played no role in the employment decision was a stray remark that lacked any probative value as a matter of law