Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in ADEA and ADA action alleging that defendant terminated 54-year-old plaintiff on account of his age, as well as the fact that he was suffering from brain aneurism. Defendant presented evidence that plaintiff was terminated after management had received series of complaints about plaintiff’s job performance, and although supervisor inquired about possibility of plaintiff’s retirement, said inquiry, which took place two years prior to termination, was too remote to constitute age discrimination. Also, plaintiff’s proposed comparable co-workers, who were four and 10 years younger than plaintiff, were not substantially younger than plaintiff. Moreover, plaintiff failed to establish that his aneurism qualified as limitation of major life activity for purposes of his ADA claim where his medical condition only periodically prevented him from working, and where there was no interruption of plaintiff’s work during last 18 months of his employment, during which he was given work assignments up until his termination.