Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-employer’s motion for summary judgment in state-court action (that had been removed to federal court) alleging that defendant failed to promote plaintiff and then ultimately terminated him on account of his race, gender and age, after defendant had failed to accurately test certain substance required for his job. Plaintiff failed to present any evidence of either race, gender or age discrimination with respect to his failure to promote claim where: (1) initial successful candidate shared two of plaintiff’s protected classifications; (2) plaintiff failed to show any pattern of disfavoring males for subject position; and (3) plaintiff failed to present evidence that reasons defendant cited for promoting successful candidates were untrue. With respect to plaintiff’s termination claim, plaintiff failed to present suitable comparative, who had received more favorable treatment after having been similarly placed on work improvement plan for failing competency test. Ct. declined to rule on Dist. Ct.’s alternative ruling that defendant did not waive 11th Amendment immunity on plaintiff’s ADEA claim, even though defendant had removed said claim to federal court.