Opinion by Judge ALARCÓN; Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge FERGUSON.

ORDER

The court’s opinion, filed June 10, 2004, [ 371 F.3d 645 ] is amended as follows:

The second paragraph on slip op. 7621 [ 371 F.3d at 647 ] that reads:

is deleted.

The following paragraph shall be inserted on page 7621 [ 371 F.3d at 647 ] and substituted for the deleted text.

On the sixth line of slip op. 7623 [ 371 F.3d at 648 ], delete “seventy-two” and substitute “seventy-three” for the deleted text.

On slip op. 7623 [ 371 F.3d at 648 ], the second sentence of the second paragraph reads:

is deleted.

The following sentence shall be inserted on slip op. 7623 [ 371 F.3d at 648 ] and substituted for the déleted text:

In the fifth line of the last paragraph on slip op. 7623 [ 371 F.3d at 648 ] delete “seventy-two years old” and substitute “seventy-three years old” for the deleted text.

In the first paragraph under Part One on slip op. 7624 [ 371 F.3d at 649 ] insert the words “in order to survive a motion for summary judgment” at the end of the second sentence.

In the first line of the paragraph beginning on line 8 on slip op. 7627 [ 371 F.3d at 650 ] insert “In his opposition to the motion for summary judgment,” before the words “Mr. Enlow”.

On line 10 of slip op. 7627 [ 371 F.3d at 650 ] delete “seventy-two years old” and substitute “seventy-three years old” for the deleted text.

On line 11 of slip op. 7627 [ 371 F.3d at 650 ] insert the following sentences after the word “seventy.”

On lines 15 and 16 of slip op. 7628 [ 371 F.3d at 651 ] delete the words “by an age discriminatory employment practice” and substitute “because he was over the age of seventy” for the deleted text.

Beginning with line 16 of slip op. 7628 [ 371 F.3d at 651 ] delete:

Beginning with line 28 on slip op. 7628 [ 371 F.3d at 651 ] delete:

Beginning with line 15 on slip op. 7629 [ 371 F.3d at 651-52 ] delete the following text to line 16 on slip op. 7630 [ 371 F.3d at 652 ],

On line 21 and 22 of slip op. 7630 [ 371 F.3d at 652 ] delete:

On line 21 and 22 of slip op. 7630 [ 371 F.3d at 652 ] substitute the following for the deleted text:

On line 22 of slip op. 7630 [ 371 F.3d at 652 ] insert after “Mr. Haley” the following text:

One line 22 of slip op. 7630 [ 371 F.3d at 652 ] delete the word “alleged” and substitute the word “declared” for the deleted word.

On line 5 of slip op. 7631 [ 371 F.3d at 652 ] delete “Mr. Anderson alleged”. Insert “Mr. Gary Anderson, Yellow Cab’s Secretary/ Treasurer, declared” and substitute for the deleted text.

On line 20 of slip op. 7631 [ 371 F.3d at 653 ] insert after the word “behalf.”, “Mr. Anderson declared:”.

On line 25 of slip op. 7631 [ 371 F.3d at 653 ], delete “of his termination from Yel-. *807 low Cab” and substitute “of the termination of his employment with Yellow Cab” for the deleted text.

On line 31 of slip op. 7631 [ 371 F.3d at 653 ], delete “alleged” and substitute “declared”.

The paragraph on slip op. 7632 [ 371 F.3d at 653 ] that reads:

is deleted.

The following paragraph shall be inserted on slip op. 7632 [ 371 F.3d at 653 ] for the deleted text:

Delete the paragraphs beginning after “Conclusion” on slip op. 7632 [ 371 F.3d at 653 ] and slip op. 7633 [ 371 F.3d at 654 ] that read:

The following two paragraphs shall be inserted on slip op. 7632 [ 371 F.3d at 653 ] and slip op. 7633 [ 371 F.3d at 654 ] and substituted for the deleted material.

With these amendments, Judge Alarcon and Judge Rawlinson have voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Ferguson has voted to grant the petition for rehearing. Judge Rawlinson has voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc. Judge Alarcon recommended that the petition for rehearing en banc be denied. Judge Ferguson recommended that the petition for rehearing en banc be granted.

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. No judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R.App. P. 35.

The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are DENIED.

OPINION

David Enlow appeals from the order denying his motion for partial summary judgment regarding his Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) claim, and the order granting Salem-Keizer Yellow Cab Co.’s (“Yellow Cab”) cross-motion for summary judgment. Mr. Enlow contends that he was entitled to summary judgment because he presented direct evidence that Yellow Cab permanently discharged him solely because of his age.

We affirm the denial of his motion because we conclude that Yellow Cab presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether, as asserted in its response to Enlow’s motion for partial summary judgment, it terminated Mr. Enlow’s employment temporarily based on a bona fide occupational qualification (“BFOQ”) or because of reasonable factors other than age (“RFOA”). We reverse the order granting Yellow Cab’s motion for summary judgment, however, because the district erred in concluding that Mr. Enlow failed to present prima facie evidence that Yellow Cab acted with a discriminatory motive or intent.

We analyze the legal questions raised in this appeal separately. In Part One, we explain why we conclude that the district court erred in granting Yellow Cab’s motion for summary judgment. In Part Two, we consider whether Yellow Cab presented sufficient evidence in response to Mr. En-low’s motion. for partial summary judgment to raise a genuine issue of material fact requiring that the parties have their day in court to determine which party should prevail.

Facts and Procedural Background

Sometime prior to June 24, 1999, a representative from the Bell Anderson insurance agency in Tacoma, Washington contacted Yellow Cab to see if it would be interested in a new insurance product that could save Yellow Cab a significant amount of money on its annual insurance premiums. After considering the quoted premium, Yellow Cab decided to accept the new policy. It is undisputed that Yellow Cab purchased the insurance policy from Mea-dowbrook Insurance Group because- the cost of its new product, Star Insurance, was more than $10,000 less than the amount Yellow Cab had paid previously to the Reliance Insurance.Co. (“Reliance Insurance”). At the time Yellow Cab accepted the Star Insurance offer, it had no knowledge that the policy excluded coverage of employees younger than twenty-three .or. older.than seventy years of age.

In order to obtain a business license to operate a “[vjehicle for hire,” the City of Salem, Oregon requires that a taxi cab company carry automobile liability insurance that covers each person employed as a “[tjaxicab driver.” Salem Revised Code, Title 3, Ch. 34.002(1), (j), 34.010(d). Yellow *810 Cab’s liability coverage under the Star Insurance policy was scheduled to take effect on June 25, 1999, the same date that its Reliance Insurance policy was due to expire. Yellow Cab paid $13,200 to Star Insurance, representing a 20% down payment on the new policy, and was scheduled to begin making monthly payments on that policy on July 1,1999.

The City of Salem required Yellow Cab to inform it of the insurance it planned to use no later than June 25, 1999. Yellow Cab faced suspension of its business license on that date if it could not provide proof of insurance for each taxi cab driver in its employ. 1

At 4:00 p.m. on June 24, 1999, a Star Insurance agent called Gary Anderson, Yellow Cab’s Secretary/Treasurer, to inform him that its new policy did not cover employees younger than twenty-three or older than seventy years of age, and that Mr. Enlow was not eligible for insurance under the new policy because he was seventy-three years old. Prior to June 24, Yellow Cab had not received a copy of the Star Insurance policy, nor had it reviewed the Star Insurance policy’s underwriting guidelines or restrictions.

After learning of the age limitation in the Star Insurance policy, Yellow Cab’s personnel manager, Richard Haley, called Mr. Enlow into his office and discharged him. We discuss below the conflicting evidence presented by the parties regarding whether the termination of Mr. Enlov/s employment was intended to be temporary or permanent, and whether Yellow Cab acted pursuant to a facially discriminatory employment practice to discharge employees over seventy years old.

Mr. Enlow filed a complaint in the district court on September 21, 2000 in which he alleged that Yellow Cab had violated the ADEA and Oregon Revised Statutes § 659.030(l)(a) (renumbered 659A.030(2)(a) in 2001), Oregon’s parallel age discrimination statute. He prayed for front and back pay.

On May 18, 2001, Mr. Enlow filed a motion for partial summary judgment on this ADEA claim in which he argued that he had established “a prima facie case” of age discrimination under the ADEA by presenting evidence that he was seventy-three years old, had performed his job to his employer’s satisfaction, and was discharged when his employer obtained less expensive automobile liability insurance that did not cover drivers over the age of seventy, while younger employees were retained. He maintained that he was entitled to prevail in the action because his age was the “but for” cause of his termination.

Yellow Cab filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on June 1, 2001 in which it argued that it was entitled to summary judgment because Mr. Enlow had not produced any evidence that Yellow Cab intended to discriminate against him based on his age. It stated: “For David Enlow to prevail, he must not only satisfy the prima facie requirements of an ADEA claim, but must produce evidence that Yellow Cab ‘intended’ to discriminate against him because of his age.” Yellow Cab maintained that because Mr. Enlow failed to allege or produce evidence of discriminatory motive, he could not prevail under a *811 disparate treatment theory of liability. Yellow Cab asserted that Mr. Enlow failed to present any evidence that Yellow Cab acted with discriminatory animus, or that its proffered reasons for terminating his employment were merely a pretext for impermissible discrimination.

The district court denied Mr. Enlow’s partial motion for summary judgment and granted Yellow Cab’s motion for summary judgment on November 26, 2001. The district court held that Mr. Enlow “failed to provide evidence of a discriminatory motive [on] the part of the Defendant in the decision to terminate Plaintiff.” Mr. En-low filed a timely notice of appeal of the order granting Yellow Cab’s cross-motion for summary judgment, and the order denying his motion for partial summary judgment. 2

Part One

Mr. Enlow contends that the district court erred in granting Yellow Cab’s motion for summary judgment. He maintains that he was not required to produce evidence that the proof relied upon by Yellow Cab to justify the termination of his employment was a pretext for impermissible discrimination in order to survive a motion for summary judgment. He argues that the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis should not apply to this case because he presented direct evidence that Yellow Cab terminated his employment because of his age.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment on any basis that is supported in the record. San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024 , 1030 (9th Cir.2004).

Under the ADEA, employers may not “fail or refuse to hire or ... discharge any individual [who is at least forty years old] or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623 (a)(1). In Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 , 113 S.Ct. 1701 , 123 L.Ed.2d 338 (1993), the Supreme Court identified two theories of employment discrimination: disparate treatment and disparate impact. Id. at 609, 113 S.Ct. 1701 (citing Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 , 335-36 n. 15, 97 S.Ct. 1843 , 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977)). In this appeal, Mr. Enlow relies solely on the disparate treatment theory of liability.

Disparate treatment is demonstrated when “ ‘[t]he employer simply treats some people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion [or other protected characteristics].’ ” Id. (second alteration in original) (quoting Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 335 n. 15, 97 S.Ct. 1843 ). More recently, the Court instructed that “ ‘liability [in a disparate treatment claim] depends on whether the protected trait (under the ADEA, age) actually motivated the employer’s decision.’ ” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 141 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (emphasis added) (quoting Hazen, 507 U.S. at 610 , 113 S.Ct. 1701 ). The Court held that “the plaintiffs age must have’ actually played a role in [the employer’s decision-making] process and had a determinative influence on the outcome.’ ” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Hazen, 507 U.S. at 610 , 113 S.Ct. 1701 ).

*812 When a plaintiff alleges disparate treatment based on direct evidence in an ADEA claim, we do not apply the burden-shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973) in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. In Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111 , 105 S.Ct. 613 , 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985), the Supreme Court instructed that “the McDonnell Douglas test is inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination.” Id. at 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613 ; see also AARP v. Farmers Group, Inc., 943 F.2d 996 , 1000 n. 7 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that “[ojrdinarily, however, when there is direct evidence of discrimination, such as when a provisionfof a pension plan] is discriminatory on its face, the prima facie case analysis is inapplicable”) Direct evidence, in the context of an ADEA claim, is defined as “ ‘evidence of conduct or statements by persons involved in the decision-making process that may be viewed as directly reflecting the alleged discriminatory attitude ... sufficient to permit the fact finder to infer that that attitude was more likely than not a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.’ ” Walton v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 167 F.3d 423, 426 (8th Cir.1999) (alteration in original, emphasis added) (quoting Radabaugh v. Zip Feed Mills, Inc., 997 F.2d 444, 449 (8th Cir.1993)).

The McDonnell Douglas formula applies under the ADEA where an employee must rely on circumstantial evidence that he or she was at least forty years old, met the requisite qualifications for the job, and was discharged while younger employees were retained. Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 . It “creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.” Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 , 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). Under McDonnell Douglas, if an employee presents prima facie circumstantial evidence of discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to “ ‘produce] evidence that the plaintiff was rejected, or someone else was preferred, for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason.’ ” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 142 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 (alteration in original) (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 ). This burden-shifting scheme is designed to assure that the “ ‘plaintifflhas] his day in court despite the unavailability of direct evidence.’ ” Trans World Airlines, 469 U.S. at 121 , 105 S.Ct. 613 (alteration in original) (quoting Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003, 1014 (1st Cir.1979)).

In his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Mr. Enlow presented direct evidence that Yellow Cab permanently terminated his employment because he was seventy-three years old and the new insurance policy did not cover employees over the age of seventy. In an affidavit filed in support of his motion for summary judgment, Mr. Enlow declared that “[a]t no time did the defendant offer me an unconditional offer of re-employment.” He further, stated that “[m]y understanding at the time of my termination was that I was terminated and would no longer be working for the Defendant.” Thus, Mr. Enlow carried his “initial burden of offering evidence adequate to create an inference that an employment decision was based on a discriminatory criterion illegal under the Act.” Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 358 , 97 S.Ct. 1843 .

Schnidrig v. Columbia Mach., Inc., 80 F.3d 1406 , 1410(9th Cir.1996) (alterations in original, first emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Cmty. Coll. Dist., 934 F.2d 1104 , 1111 (9th Cir.1991)).

Yellow Cab presented evidence in opposition to Mr. Enlow’s motion for partial summary judgment that the sole reason it temporarily terminated Mr. Enlow’s employment was to prevent the City of Salem from closing its business doors because it lacked proof that each of its drivers was insured. In reviewing the district court’s decision to grant Yellow Cab’s motion for summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Enlow. Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1287 (9th Cir.2000).

The district court granted Yellow Cab’s motion for summary judgment because it concluded that Mr. Enlow failed to produce evidence that Yellow Cab had a discriminatory motive for terminating Mr. Enlow’s employment. In reaching this conclusion, the district court erroneously applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis. Mr. Enlow presented direct evidence that would support an inference that his employment was terminated because he was over the age of seventy. By granting summary judgment in favor of Yellow Cab, the district court denied Mr. Enlow his day in court “ ‘with respect to the legitimacy or bona fides of [Yellow Cab’s] articulated reason for its employment decision.’ ” Sischo-Noumejad, 934 F.2d at 1111(quoting Lowe v. City of Monrovia, 775 F.2d 998, 1009 (9th Cir.1985)).

Part Two

Mr. Enlow also seeks reversal of the order denying his motion for partial summary judgment in his ADEA claim. He maintains that he is entitled to summary judgment without a trial because he has presented direct evidence that his employment was terminated because employees who are more than seventy years old are not covered under the Star Insurance policy. He requests that we instruct the district court to enter judgment in his favor.

It is undisputed that Yellow Cab did not purchase the Star Insurance policy in order to discriminate against employees younger than twenty-three and older than seventy years of age. In his supplemental brief to this court, Mr. Enlow concedes that Yellow Cab was not aware of the Star Insurance policy’s discriminatory provision when it purchased it.

In reviewing the denial of Mr. Enlow’s motion for partial summary judgment, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Yellow Cab. Coleman, 232 F.3d at 1287 . In response to Mr. Enlow’s motion, Yellow Cab offered evidence that Mr. Enlow’s employment was not permanently terminated. Mr. Haley, Yellow Cab’s personnel manager, declared in his affidavit that “the only reason why Mr. Enlow was terminated was because the company made a switch in auto insurance carriers and the new carrier did not insure drivers under twenty-three years of age or over the age of seventy. The saving in annual premium expense was the only reason why Yellow Cab switched insurance.” He also alleged that “[a]t no time did Yellow Cab search for an insurance carrier who did not insure older workers in order to terminate Mr. Enlow’s position with the company.” Mr. Haley further stated that:

Mr. Gary Anderson, Yellow Cab’s Secretary/Treasurer, declared that Yellow Cab adopted the new Star Insurance policy without knowledge that it did not insure drivers over the age of seventy or under the age of twenty-three. He stated that Yellow Cab did not learn of the age limitation until 4:00 p.m., on the day before it was required to provide proof of insurance to the City of Salem or face the loss of its business license. Mr. Anderson declared that the possibility of renewing its old insurance policy “was no longer available” at the time Yellow Cab learned of the new policy’s age limitation.

Yellow Cab also produced evidence that Mr. Haley had indicated to Mr. Enlow that the termination of his employment was only “temporary until coverage could be resolved or obtained.” Immediately following Mr. Enlow’s termination, Mr. Anderson made several phone calls on Mr. Enlow’s behalf. Mr. Anderson declared: “I personally called Cherry City cab company in order to find Mr. Enlow work while we sorted out the insurance coverage problem.” Mr. Anderson was successful in securing a job interview for Mr. Enlow with the Blue Jay Cab Company. Mr. Enlow was hired to begin work with the Blue Jay Cab Company within a week of the termination of his employment with Yellow Cab.

Finally, Yellow Cab introduced evidence that after it discharged Mr. Enlow, Mr. Anderson spoke with representatives at Star Insurance to see if they would waive the age restriction in their policy so that Mr. Enlow could be reemployed. Mr. Anderson declared: “I was able to talk the insurance carrier into considering Mr. En-low for insurance if he would be willing to consider submitting to a medical checkup.” Yellow Cab then presented Mr. En-low with the option of taking a physical examination with the hope that Star Insurance would agree to insure Mr. Enlow on the basis of a clean bill of health. Mr. Anderson stated in his affidavit that “Mr. Enlow indicated that he would not agree to a physical and declined the offer to return to Yellow Cab.” This evidence directly conflicts with Mr. Enlow’s allegation that he was 'permanently terminated from his employment solely because of his age.

Viewed in the light most favorable to Yellow Cab, this evidence shows that it did not permanently terminate Mr. En-low’s employment because he was more than seventy years old. Instead, Yellow Cab’s evidence shows that Mr. Enlow was temporarily discharged to avoid termination of Yellow Cab’s business license while it negotiated with Star Insurance to waive the age exclusion provisions in its policy. As a demonstration of its intent to protect Mr. Enlow’s employment rights, Yellow Cab successfully obtained temporary employment for him with another cab company. Yellow Cab also obtained Star Insurance’s tentative agreement to waive the age-based exclusion of coverage if Mr. Enlow would submit to a physical examination. Mr. Enlow rejected Star Insurance’s willingness to consider waiving its age exclusion provisions if he could pass a physical examination. He also declined Yellow Cab’s offer to reemploy him. The evidence offered by Yellow Cab presents a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it can demonstrate at trial that its *815 employment decision “falls within one of the exceptions to the ADEA’s prohibitions.” EEOC v. Santa Barbara, 666 F.2d 373 , 375 (9th Cir.1982) (citations omitted). The ADEA provides that “[i]t shall not be unlawful for an employer ... to take any action otherwise prohibited under ... this section where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business, or where the differentiation is based on reasonable factors other than age....” 29 U.S.C. § 623 (f)(1). “The validity of a BFOQ turns upon factual findings, preferably ones by a jury.” EEOC v. Boeing Company, 843 F.2d 1213, 1216 (9th Cir.1988).

Whether a BFOQ or RFOA defense will sustain a judgment in favor of Yellow Cab will depend on the resolution of disputed factual issues which can only be resolved by a trier of fact regarding the employment action Yellow Cab actually took, such as, whether Mr. Enlow’s discharge was temporary or permanent, was subject to a medical test, did he refuse an offer of reinstatement, was he laid off solely for the time necessary for Yellow Cab to obtain insurance coverage for him, and whether it was prohibitively expensive to insure drivers over seventy. We cannot decide on the sharply disputed facts in this record which version of the facts will be persuasive to a jury, and which party should prevail on appeal as a matter of law. Thus, we express no view at this interlocutory stage of these proceedings regarding the principles of law that will be applicable after the jury has made its findings and we have a complete record of the relevant facts. The district court did not err in denying Mr. Enlow’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Conclusion

We conclude that Mr. Enlow presented sufficient direct evidence to support an inference that Yellow Cab’s decision to terminate his employment was based on the fact that he was more than seventy years of age. For that reason, the district court erred in granting Yellow Cab’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that Mr. Enlow failed to present any evidence that Yellow Cab acted with discriminatory animus.

We also hold that Yellow Cab presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of disputed fact regarding whether Mr. Enlow was permanently discharged because of his age, or whether it has a viable BFOQ or a RFOA affirmative defense based on its evidence that a temporary discharge was necessary to avoid losing its business license because all of its employees were not covered by automobile liability insurance. The district court did not err in denying Mr. Enlow’s partial motion for summary judgment. Because there are genuine issues of material fact in dispute, we reject Mr. Enlow’s request that we instruct the district court to grant his motion for summary judgment.

We VACATE the order granting Yellow Cab’s motion for summary judgment and AFFIRM the order denying Mr. Enlow’s motion for partial summary judgment.

Each side shall bear its own costs.

. Salem Revised Code, Title 3, Ch. 30.124 requires as follows:

. On this appeal, Mr. Enlow has abandoned his state age discrimination claim. See Big Bear Lodging Ass’n v. Snow Summit, Inc., 182 F.3d 1096, 1105 (9th Cir.1999) (“Issues appealed but not briefed are deemed abandoned.”).