a prima facie ease in regard to his termination claim. See Verbraeken, 881 F.2d at 1045. “[E]vidence of age discrimina­tion is direct when, if believed, it establishes discriminatory intent without inference or presumption. Only the most blatant re­marks whose intent could only be to discrimi­nate on the basis of age constitute direct evidence.” Clark, 990 F.2d at 1227 (empha­sis added). Plaintiff asserts that Russell Ha­ley’s inquiries as to plaintiffs age and desire to retire are direct evidence of age discrimi­nation. Haley’s statements, however, are not the type of “blatant remarks” contemplated by the Eleventh Circuit as sufficient to estab­lish a prima facie case of age discrimination. See, e.g., Barnes v. Southwest Forest Indus­tries, Inc., 814 F.2d 607, 610-11 (11th Cir.­1987) (<HOLDING>); see also Williams v. General Motors Corp.,
holding that a statement of fact relating to the plaintiffs age was not direct evidence of age discrimination because the relevance of the comment is provided by inference holding that the statement at your age i dont believe you could pass the test is not direct evidence of age discrimination holding age discrimination claim barred 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 age discrimination is not a personal injury tort