Opinion ID: 3026635
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Schweizer’s Remark

Text: In addition to presenting evidence to cast doubt on the three specific reasons given by Sears for his termination, Steward also presented evidence of Schweizer’s age-based bias against him. Steward testified that Schweizer made an age-based comment to him in May 2001, in response to Steward’s voicing concerns about the additional responsibilities given to the Technical Managers at that time. Schweizer said to Steward, “Hell, you are old enough, you have been around long enough, you should handle this.” App. 519. The District Court concluded that the comment did not clearly show an age bias. “The age comment, rather than exhibiting a bias against plaintiff because of his age, expressed Schweizer’s opinion that plaintiff could perform the extra work assigned because of his experience. Any other inference regarding that statement is unreasonable.” Steward, 2006 WL 1648979, at . We disagree and conclude that a reasonable factfinder could infer from this remark that Schweizer was biased against Steward because of his age. The remark reflects Schweizer’s awareness of Steward’s age, not merely his “experience” or time with the company. The jury could have inferred from this evidence that Schweizer was more 21 impatient with Steward because of Steward’s age and held him to a different standard than his coworkers because of his age.6 The District Court also concluded that this remark was not probative of Sears’ motivation in terminating Steward because it was not made in connection with Steward’s termination. Id. at -27. However, remarks made by supervisors directly involved in the termination decision at issue can be evidence of their discriminatory animus, even if the remarks were not made in connection with the termination decision. Cf. Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983 F.2d 509, 528 (3d Cir. 1992) (comments by partner who did not participate in promotion decision, made five years before failure to promote plaintiff, were not probative).