With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". June 29, 2016) (finding retirement comments “minimally probative of pretext” because “inquiries into retirement plans do not generally constitute evidence of discrimination” absent evidence that the “questioning is egregious or incorporates some type of direct reference to age,” but concluding that the plaintiff had demonstrated pretext by creating a genuine issue of material fact through other evidence). The repeated nature of the inquiries does not increase their probative worth, considering that they occurred just a few times a year, and, again, because there is no suggestion that the frequency amounted to pressure for Plaintiff to retire. Mastellone v. Publix Super Mkts., Inc., 179 F.Supp.3d 784, 797, No. 3:14-CV-433-TAV-HBG, 2016 WL 1328922, at *9 (E.D.Tenn. Apr. 5, 2016) (<HOLDING>); Spence v. Potter, No. 1:07— CV-00526, 2010 WL

A: holding that the fact that employees mention or ask about retirement is not evidence of age discrimination and therefore not finding sufficient evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of a supervisor who frequently asked plaintiff about his retirement plans
B: holding that an employees claim for breach of a letter agreement was preempted by erisa where the agreement did not specify the amount or other terms of the employees retirement benefits and the court would have to refer to the employers erisagoverned retirement plan to determine the employees retirement benefits and calculate the damages claimed
C: holding that serial offer of retirement plans did not implicate erisa
D: holding that plaintiff who was not of retirement age and comparator who was of retirement age were not similarly situated where comparator was allowed to voluntarily retire while plaintiff was terminated
A.