With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Even so, the Supreme Court expressly reserved the question of “whether the evidentiary framework of [McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824-25, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)] ... is appropriate in the ADEA context.” Gross, 557 U.S. at -, 129 S.Ct. at 2349 n. 2. We have used the analytical framework from McDonnell Douglas in ADEA cases where a plaintiff offers circumstantial evidence to prove a claim of discrimination. Cofield v. Goldkist, Inc., 267 F.3d 1264, 1268 n. 6 (11th Cir.2001) (noting that “[a]l-though the McDonnell Douglas framework originally applied to Title VII cases, it is now widely accepted that the framework applies to claims of discrimination under the ADEA as well”). Sinc ., 517 U.S. 308, 313, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 1310, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Knight v. Baptist Hosp. of Miami, Inc., 330

A: holding that being replaced by someone outside the protected class is not a proper element of the fourth prong because replacement by a substantially younger employee is a far more reliable indicator of age discrimination
B: holding that the fourth prong of a prima facie age discrimination case was satisfied where plaintiff was replaced by two individuals  one who was four years younger than plaintiff and the other who was ten years younger
C: holding that when a 56year old employee was replaced by a 40year old employee this qualified as someone substantially younger for the purposes of establishing a prima facie case
D: holding that replacement by someone outside the protected group is required to make a prima facie age discrimination case
A.