a prima facie case. Second, the Court finds Defendant proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating Plaintiffs employment, Plaintiffs repeated performance problems as a Kmart Store Manager, but Plaintiff failed to establish that this reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. Each shortcoming in the Plaintiffs case — his failure to establish a prima facie case and his failure to prove pret en as to three prongs of the prima facie case. He demonstrated he was born in 1950, and so was over age 40 when he was terminated in April 2010. (Complaint ¶ 7). He demonstrated he suffered an adverse employment action, when he was fired as a Kmart Store Manager. And he also presented evidence that he was replaced by two significantly younger employees — first (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs problem is that he has failed to
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 when a 56year old employee was replaced by a 40year old employee this qualified as someone substantially younger for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case holding that the fourth prong of a prima facie age discrimination case was satisfied where plaintiff was replaced by two individuals  one who was four years younger than plaintiff and the other who was ten years younger holding that a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case holding when an employee was temporarily replaced by a person who was 10 years younger and permanently replaced by a person four years younger this was sufficient for the prima facie case