Martin

MEMORANDUM *

We must decide whether the district court was correct to grant summary judgment to the defendant on each plaintiff’s claim of age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Because we conclude that none of the plaintiffs provided sufficient evidence to permit a rational jury to find in his favor, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Lockheed Environmental Systems and Technologies (“LESAT”) was an environmental management company and a subsidiary of the Lockheed Martin Corporation. 1 At the time of the events that are relevant to this litigation, LESAT was *468 composed of three divisions, two of which were the Technologies Application Division (“TAD”) and the Environmental Services Division (“ESD”). Four of the plaintiffs in this litigation (Ronald May, Charles Ca-pron, Joseph McGough, and Malek Af-shari) worked for TAD. The remaining two plaintiffs (Roy Cameron and Everett Richardson) worked for ESD. In a complaint filed in the district court for the District of Nevada, all six plaintiffs allege that LE-SAT discriminated against them on the basis of age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 623 . The…