before and after the RIF is as follows: Total Number Number of Percentage of of employees employees over employees over _at Maynard_50 years old_50 years old October 2008_143_22_15.3%_ May 26. 2009_97_17_17.5%_ The above statistics show: * that prior to the RIF, 15.3% of the workforce at Maynard was over 50 years old; and * that after the RIF, 17.5% of the workforce was over 50 years old. The foregoing shows that the percentage of employees aged 50 years or older at Maynard actually increased after the RIF. In light of the foregoing analysis, the Court concludes, that the stray remarks made by Joe Maynard — coupled with the statistical evidence — are insufficient to establish a prime facie case of age discrimination. See Holley v. Sanyo Mfg., Inc., 771 F.2d 1161, 1167 (8th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). (d) The inconsistent explanations for
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 age discrimination claim barred holding no statistical evidence of age discrimination where the percentage of such employees in the protected class before the layoff was 258 after the layoff it was 260 holding that statistical evidence presented by the plaintiff showing an employers pattern of conduct toward a protected class is relevant to a showing of pretext and can create an inference of discrimination 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