Medina points to a comment by District Manager Juan Mercado in which Mercado said to Medina that Medina was “big, fat, and strong,, but yet so messed up.” Plaintiffs Statement pf Contested Facts at 2. Thése isolated comments fail even to approach evidence of discriminatory animus. Even if these statements could be reasonably construed as discriminatory, though, “isolated or ambiguous remarks, tending to suggest animus ..., are insufficient, standing alone, to prove an employer’s discriminatory intent.” Speen v. Crown Clothing Corp., 102 F.3d 625, 636 (1st Cir.1996) (interpreting state age discrimination law and quoting Blare v. Husky Injection Molding Sys., 419 Mass. 437, 646 N.E.2d 111, 118, n. 9 (1995)). See also Lehman v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 74 F.3d 323, 329 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); Gagne v. Northwestern Nat’l Ins. Co., 881
holding that isolated remarks are insufficient to prove 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 that  ambiguous remarks tending to suggest animus based on age are insufficient standing alone to prove an employers discriminatory intent  holding causal link between alleged discriminatory remarks and adverse employment action insufficient holding failure to promote was an isolated incident of discrimination which is insufficient to prove a continuing violation