As this discussion indicates, this Court declines to accept this argument in the context of the McDonnell Douglas analysis.See Robuck v. Mine Safety Appliances Co., Civ. No. 10-763, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104956, *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 1, 2010); Lapic v. MTD Prods., Inc., Civ. No. 09-760, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84925, *9-10 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 17, 2009); Romantine v. CH2M Hill Engineers, Inc., Civ. No. 09-973, 2009 WL 3417469, *1 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 23, 2009); Tyco Fire Prods. LP v. Victaulic Co., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2011 WL 1399847, *5 (E.D. Pa. 2011); F.T.C. v. Hope Now Modifications, LLC, Civ. No. 09-1204, 2011 WL 883202, *3 (D.N.J. 2011); Charleswell v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., Civ. No. 01-119, 2009 WL 4981730, *4 (D.V.I. Dec. 8, 2009).