disability. See Conward v. Cambridge School, 171 F.3d 12, 20 (1st Cir.1999). Medina simply fails to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on this question. Even taken in the light most favorable to Medina, Medina’s items of evidence of discriminatory intent range from unconvincing at best to irrelevant at worst. Medina points to several comments made by his superiors as evidence of their intent to discriminate against him on the basis of his disability. First, Medina contends that Regional Manager Jesús Toledo asked Medina to consider a non-managerial position on “two or three” occasions because of Medina’s difficulty in performing the physical tasks that Store Managers perform. Plaintiffs Statement of Contested Facts at 1. Seco 309, 314 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). As further evidence of discriminatory intent,
recognizing that the seventh circuit consistently has held that isolated comments that are no more than stray remarks in the work place are insufficient to establish that a particular decision was motivated by discriminatory animus holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent holding failure to promote was an isolated incident of discrimination which is insufficient to prove a continuing violation holding that  ambiguous remarks tending to suggest animus based on age are insufficient standing alone to prove an employers discriminatory intent 