because they were young, but only that they were relatively inexperienced, and needed mentoring. Although plaintiff takes issue with defendant’s assertion that Voecks and others used the adjective “young” as a synonym for “inexperienced,” the obvious fact is that young employees are — indeed, must be — relatively inexperienced, simply because they are young,- and have not had a chance to gain a great deal of experience. To hold that references to youth as innocuous as the ones in this case are evidence of age bias would place on employers the undue burden of taking pains to ensure that supervisors excised the word “young,” and any variants thereof, from their language. The case law does not support such a result. See Turner v. North American Rubber, Inc., 979 F.2d 55, 59 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiffs interpretation of the references
holding that comments relating to age made some three to fifteen or more years prior to plaintiffs discharge were not relevant to show that he was fired because of his age 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 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 age discrimination claim barred holding that an employers reference to younger employees as three young tigers was not enough to show age discrimination