and left the company on May 5, 2010, three months before the August interviews for the ICS position and played no part in the ICS hiring decision. The Court agrees with Defendant that Mr. Hoover’s “old man” comments do not rise to the level of actionable discrimination under the present circumstances. Even viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence does not demonstrate that Mr. Hoover was a decisionmaker who made deliberate statements showing discriminatory animus. Stray remarks uttered in an ambivalent manner and not tied directly to the Plaintiffs non-selection for the ICS position are insufficient to show discrimination. See Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir.1998); Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1438-39 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); see also Nesbit v. Pepsico, Inc., 994 F.2d
recognizing that stray remarks are insufficient to raise an inference of discrimination and concluding that a comment by the decisionmaker that he selected a candidate for a promotion because the candidate was a bright intelligent knowledgeable young man was a stray remark that did not raise an inference of age discrimination holding that stray remark by decisionmaker referring to youth of employee promoted instead of age discrimination plaintiff was insufficient to prove the employer relied on illegitimate agerelated criteria holding that alleged reference to national origin by nondecisionmaker six months prior to plaintiffs termination was the kind of isolated stray remark insufficient without more to raise an inference of discrimination and defeat summary judgment holding that a remark by a decisionmaker made two years before termination was too remote in time to support a finding of pretext for intentional discrimination holding managers discriminatory remark indicative of age bias where buttressed by other evidence of discrimination and thus remark was not an isolated comment