With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Circuit has repeatedly refused to hold that such comments constitute direct evidence of discrimination. See, e.g., Minton v. American Bankers Ins. Group, 2003 WL 21303330 *1 (11th Cir.2003)(finding that statements that the company needed “fresh new blood” and that it was about time the older employees stepped aside so the younger employees could also achieve a measure of wealth was not direct evidence of discrimination); Beaver v. Rayonier, Inc., 188 F.3d 1279, 1285-1286 (11th Cir.1999)(finding that decision-maker’s comment that he wanted to attract “younger, engineer-type employees or supervisors” in reduction-in-force case did not rise to the level of direct evidence of discrimination); Burrell v. Board of Trustees of Georgia Military College, 125 F.3d 1390, 1393-94 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); see also Shook, 74 F.Supp.2d at 1177 (finding

A: holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent
B: holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent
C: holding that such circumstantial evidence may be used to prove discrimination
D: holding that evidence which suggests but does not prove a discriminatory motive is circumstantial evidence by definition
D.