form, for example, of an employer telling an employee, T fired you because you are disabled.’ ” Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799, 805 (6th Cir.1998). In an ADEA ease based upon direct evidence of discrimination, the burden shifting framework utilized under Title VII does not apply, i.e. the burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age. Geiger, 579 F.3d at 621. In a direct evidence case, plaintiff must prove “ ‘by a preponderance of the evidence ... that age was the ‘but-for’ cause of the challenged employer decision.’” Id. (quoting Gross, 557 U.S. at 174 n. 4, 129 S.Ct. 2343). Further, the remarks allegedly constituting direct evidence must be made in relation to the decision to terminate. Geiger, 579 F.3d at 621 (<HOLDING>) (alteration in original) (internal quotation
holding that an appellant bears the burden of demonstrating error on appeal holding that statements unrelated to the decisional process itself cannot suffice to satisfy the plaintiffs burden  of demonstrating animus holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice holding that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the action should be transferred holding that burden of demonstrating coverage rests with the insured