Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): intent] at the time it rejected” the plaintiff). Sonic contends that no one replaced Israel, and because Youngblood was the first employee hired into the F & I Department, his age precludes the court from finding Israel has met his prima facie case. Ironically, using Youngblood as Israel’s replacement would allow this court to hold that Israel has met his prima-facie case. Youngblood, who was in his mid-40s, was transferred to the F & I Department after Israel was terminated. Israel was 58 at this time, and although Youngblood was in the age group protected by the ADEA, this does not preclude a finding that his replacement of Israel satisfies the fourth element of the prima-facie case. O’Connor v. Consol. Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Wright v. Southland Corp., 187 F.3d 1287, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prove a primafacie case the employee is not necessarily required to show that the replacement was younger than 40 (B) holding that replacement by someone outside the protected group is required to make a prima facie age discrimination case (C) 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 (D) holding that younger abstention is jurisdictional (E) holding that being replaced by someone outside the protected class is not a proper element of the fourth prong because replacement by a substantially younger employee is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination
Output (English): holding that being replaced by someone outside the protected class is not a proper element of the fourth prong because replacement by a substantially younger employee is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination