Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, 624 Fed.Appx. 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2015) (citingMinadeo v. ICIPaints, 398 F.3d 751, 763 (6th Cir. 2005)).

In the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, a plaintiff must establish a primafacie case of age discrimination by showing: (1) she was at least 40 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination, (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) she was otherwise qualified for the position, and (4) similarly-situated non-protected employees were treated more favorably. Mickey v. Zeidler Tool and Die Co., 516 F.3d 516, 521 (6th Cir. 2008); Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 624 Fed. Appx. 341, 345-46 (6th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff also appears to allege she was subjected to a hostile work environment based on her age.

See Blizzard v. Marion Tech. Coll., 698 F.3d 275, 282-83 (6th Cir. 2012); see also Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 624 Fed.Appx. 341, 345 (6th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).

“[T]o avoid summary judgment, a plaintiff must present evidence from which a jury could reasonably find that the employer's proffered reason for the adverse employment action was not the real reason that it discharged her and that unlawful age discrimination was the true reason.” Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 624 Fed.Appx. 341, 347 (6th Cir. 2015) (citing Chen, 580 F.3d at 400); Chen, 580 U.S. at 400 n.4 (“at bottom the question is always whether the employer made up its stated reason to conceal intentional discrimination”).

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing that "(1) she was at least 40 years old at the time of the alleged discrimination; (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) she was otherwise qualified for the position; and (4) she was replaced by a younger worker, or there are circumstances that support an inference of discrimination." Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 624 F. App'x 341, 346 (6th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted); see also Blizzard v. Marion Technical Coll., 698 F.3d 275, 283 (6th Cir. 2012). Electrolux does not dispute that Jenkins belongs to a protected class for purposes of an age discrimination claim.

If the plaintiff satisfies this third step, the factfinder may reasonably infer discrimination. Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 624 F. App'x 341, 349 (6th Cir. 2015). SCHRA concedes that Miles can establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.

Id. (citing Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 624 Fed.Appx. 341, 349 (6th Cir. 2015)).

If Plaintiff satisfies this third step, the factfinder may reasonably infer discrimination. Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 624 Fed.Appx. 341, 349 (6th Cir. 2015).

Generally, “[i]f the plaintiff satisfies this third step, the factfinder may reasonably infer discrimination.” Id. (citing Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 624 Fed.Appx. 341, 349 (6th Cir. 2015)).

Such a pattern of purging older employees leaving younger staff to fill the gaps has been found to support an inference of discrimination. Moffat v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 624 Fed.Appx. 341,347 (6th Cir. 2015) (“The evidence shows that Walmart discharged three older employees (ages 54, 59, and 62 years) for engaging in the same conduct, leaving the Lawn and Garden Department staffed primarily by three significantly younger employees (ages 19, 21, and 23), and hired two significantly younger employees as replacements (ages 19 and 21). The composition of the Lawn and Garden Department