Opinion ID: 201844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Employee salary

Text: 54 According to the deposition testimony of PSR Rafael Oliver, there were always comments from García and Hernández to the effect that you have to pay two [employees] in their twenties less than one in his fifties because of what is being earned. That with that salary they would pay two, or they would pay two and a half. Ramírez cites this statement as evidence that Mr. Díaz, Mr. Hernández, and Mr. García preferred young sales representatives, and therefore that he was terminated because of his age. Even if this statement does reflect age bias (the inference most favorable to Ramírez), Ramírez has cited no evidence on appeal that either Hernández or García — as opposed to Díaz, his direct supervisor — was involved in the decision to terminate him. 17 [S]tatements made either by nondecisionmakers[,] or by decisionmakers not involved in the decisional process, normally are insufficient, standing alone, to establish either pretext or the requisite discriminatory animus. Gonzalez v. El Dia, Inc., 304 F.3d 63, 69 (1st Cir.2002). 55