With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at issue. The Magistrate Judge held that because UPMC did not retain unprotected supervisors from Montefiore, i.e., supervisors under the age of 40, appellant could not satisfy the fourth element, and summary judgment was therefore appropriate. App. at 56-57, 62. In light of our opinions in Armbruster, Senian, and Billet, all of which held that the fourth element of a prima facie age discrimination case in a RIF context requires the plaintiff to show that unprotected workers were retained, the Magistrate Judge understandably applied this standard rather than requiring Showalter to show that the retained workers were “sufficiently younger” than he was at the time of discharge. See Keller, 130 F.3d at 1108; see also Healy v. New York Life Ins. Co., 860 F.2d 1209, 1214 n. 1 (3d Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Nevertheless, in light of the Supreme Court’s

A: holding prima facie case established where employer fired fiftytwo year old accountant pursuant to rif but retained one younger employee in similar position
B: holding in a rif context that the fourth prima facie element is satisfied if the plaintiff can show that he was discharged while the company retained someone younger
C: holding that fourth element of a prima facie case is satisfied when the employees who were more favorably treated were situated similarly to the plaintiff
D: holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1
B.