MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DOUGLAS WOODLOCK, District Judge

The plaintiff in this age discrimination case was a part-time truck driver at the Postal Service Boston Processing and Distribution Center for a 90-day probationary period. He was terminated for failure to meet the requirements of the position. He contends that this determination at the conclusion of his probationary period was as a result of age discrimination. The defendant Postmaster General has moved for summary judgment. I will grant that motion.

The plaintiff is unable to satisfy the burden of establishing aprima facia case because the evidence of record fails to demonstrate that his job performance met the employer's legitimate expectations. More fundamentally, he is unable to demonstrate that age was the motivating factor in his termination.

In opposition to the defendant's motion, the plaintiff contends that the several performance standards and directions which the defendant imposed were applied arbitrarily and without consistency. Apart, however, from the plaintiff's statement of perception, there is no evidence or arbitrariness or inconsistency. Nor is there any indication that performance standards to which plaintiff was held were illegitimate or otherwise unrelated to his job.

The plaintiff does not appear to contest that he did not satisfy the various performance directives. Rather his claim is that others also did not do so and were not subject to termination. But even if the perception or arbitrariness and inconsistency which the plaintiff limns in his response to the defendant's fully supported motion can be taken as some evidence that the expectations were not legitimate, there is no adequate showing that age was the motivating factor in the termination for his failure to meet his employer's work related standards.

The plaintiff's evidence of age animus is not sufficiently substantial to support this case. His comparison with the treatment of another Part-Time Flexible employee, the pertinent job status for purposes of disparate treatment analysis, simply compares his own experience with that of Mr. Nichols, another person within the age-protected category. It adds nothing to evidence of age discrimination.

The plaintiff contends in his Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion that "[o]n one occasion Marco DiCenzo supervisor [sic] said in the presence of other supervisors: `who needs a 56 year old Tractor Trailer Driver,'" citing plaintiff's Interrogatory Answer to No. 3. Even if this statement were accurately attributed to a supervisor — which it is not — in context, it is simply a vagrant comment insufficient to raise actionable age animus. And, on this record, the comment cannot even be ascribed to a supervisor. The actual answer to Interrogatory Answer No. 3 leaves the purported author of this comment unidentified, except as a "Dispatch Worker", although supervisors were allegedly present at the time it was made. There is no indication, however, that they endorsed the comment. It is apparent that the interrogatory answer does not ascribe the statement to DiCenzo, nor does it support some ratification by any supervisor.

On this record, there is no other conclusion than the basis on which the plaintiff was terminated from his probationary period reflected legitimate employer expectations. Even if those employer expectations were arbitrarily and inconsistently applied to the relevant workforce, there is no indication that the arbitrariness and inconsistency was as a result of age animus, nor is there sufficient evidence of age discrimination by relevant decision makers.

Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.