Question: Calvin Rhodes sold oil-field equipment for Anson Oil Tools. When he was discharged in 1986 at age fifty-six, he was told that the discharge was part of a reduction in the workforce (RIF) and that he would be considered for reemployment. Within six weeks, Anson hired a forty-two-year-old person to do the same job. Rhodes brought a suit against Anson in a federal district court, claiming that the real reason he was discharged was age discrimination.

At the trial, Anson offered as a defense Rhodes's "poor work performance" but did not present any company sales records or goals. Rhodes countered with customers' testimony about his expertise and diligence. The jury found that Rhodes was discharged because of his age. Anson appealed the decision. Assume that you are a judge on the federal appellate court reviewing this case and answer the following questions.

1. Remember that as an appellate court judge, you should defer to the trial court's findings of fact-unless you conclude that there is no justification for the trial court's findings. Thus, the question you need to decide is whether a reasonable jury could have found that Rhodes was a victim of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). How will you answer this question? Why?

2. Does it matter that Rhodes's replacement was also a member of the class of persons protected by the ADEA? Will your answer to this question affect your answer to Question 1 above?