needless anxiety. Mudd v. Nosker Lumber, Inc., 443 Pa.Super. 483, 662 A.2d 660, 663 (1995). Here, appellants have offered no compelling reason that would warrant our reducing by any amount the period of inactivity on the docket. The period of docket inactivity in this case was over five years, and prejudice must be presumed. Thus, the prejudice prong of the non pros test is met. Accord ingly, assuming arguendo that appellants failed to demonstrate actual prejudice, it would not be a bar to the entry of a judgment of non pros in this ease. Pine Township Water Company v. Felmont Oil, 425 Pa.Super. 473, 625 A.2d 703 (1993) (because there was no docket activity for period exceeding two years, prejudice was presumed and need not be averred or proven by the movant); Pennridge Electric, supra (<HOLDING>). However, appellants argue that pursuant to
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 reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for discrimination  unless it is shown both that the reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason holding that where the period of docket inactivity was four years and no compelling reason was provided for the inactivity prejudice was presumed holding that prejudice  can be presumed where claimants are deprived of the use of their property by the government without justifiable cause for a period of twentythree months holding that there is no prejudice where the racial reference was for purposes of identification