opinion: Donald H. FRIEZE, Appellee, v BOATMEN’S BANK OF BELTON, Appellant.
  No. 91-1030.
  United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
  Submitted Sept. 13, 1991.
  Decided Dec. 2, 1991.
  Robert B. Hoemeke, St. Louis, Mo., argued (John J. Moellering and Curtis C. Callow, St. Louis, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
  G. Edwin Proctor, Jr., Kansas City, Mo., argued, for appellee.
  Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judges.
  FAGG, Circuit Judge.
  Donald H. Frieze brought this action against Boatmen’s Bank of Belton (Boatmen’s) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1982 & Supp. Ill 1985). Boatmen’s appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. We reverse.
  We state the facts in the light most favorable to Frieze, who won the verdict. See Caudill v. Farmland Indus., 919 F.2d 83, 86 (8th Cir.1990). Boatmen’s corporate predecessor hired Frieze in October 1979 when Frieze was forty years old. During his employment with Boatmen’s, Frieze primarily made and collected loans. Frieze advanced from making simple consumer loans to making more sophisticated commercial and real estate loans. Boatmen's always rated Frieze as either competent or superior on his performance evaluations. In May 1983 Frieze’s supervisor in the loan department, Edwin Hartzler, was promoted to president of Boatmen’s. Boatmen’s hired Jerry Martin as senior vice-president to replace Hartzler as head of the loan department. Boatmen’s made Frieze an assistant vice-president, but Frieze’s duties did not change.
  In November 1986 Martin told Frieze to prepare a stock appraisal for a loan file. Frieze had reviewed the customer’s appraisal of the stock, but had not prepared his own appraisal. Angered by Martin’s request, Frieze prepared the stock appraisal and signed it, “[Pjersonally by God looked up by me—D.H. Frieze.” Later that month, Hartzler terminated Frieze’s employment at Boatmen’s. Hartzler told Frieze he was being discharged because of the defiant notation he made on the stock appraisal. Frieze admits making the notation was unprofessional.
  Boatmen’s did not hire another loan officer when it discharged Frieze. Martin and two other loan officers, Deborah Catron and John West, absorbed the work Frieze had performed. Martin was forty-four, Ca-tron was thirty-one, and West was thirty-seven. Almost five months after Frieze was discharged, Martin resigned from Boatmen's to take a position at another bank. Boatmen’s then promoted Catron to assistant vice-president and West to vice-president. In May 1987 Boatmen’s hired John Dix Wellington as a management trainee. Wellington was twenty-four years old and had no banking experience. Wellington began working in the loan department in September 1987, but did not make his first loan until February 1988. Wellington did not begin making commercial and real estate loans until 1989, more than two years after Boatmen’s discharged Frieze.
  Frieze brought this action asserting Boatmen’s stated reason for discharging him was a pretext and Boatmen’s really fired him because of his age. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Frieze. In deciding whether Boatmen’s is entitled to judgment notwithstanding the adverse jury verdict, we must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to Frieze, assume all conflicts in the evidence were resolved by the jury in Frieze’s favor, assume Frieze proved all facts his evidence tends to prove, and give Frieze the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the proven facts. Caudill, 919 F.2d at 86. A judgment notwithstanding the verdict “should be granted only when all the evidence points one way and is susceptible of no reasonable inferences sustaining [Frieze’s] position.” Washburn v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 831 F.2d 1404, 1407 (8th Cir.1987); see also Caudill, 919 F.2d at 86.
  Boatmen’s claims a jury could not reasonably infer Frieze was discriminated against on the basis of age. We agree. In reaching this conclusion, we have considered the evidence favoring Frieze and uncontradicted evidence of Martin’s departure and Wellington’s arrival. See Cau-dill, 919 F.2d at 86. It is not our task to assess the soundness of Boatmen’s decision to terminate Frieze. See Wilkins v. Eaton Corp., 797 F.2d 342, 343 (6th Cir.1986). “[0]ur role is to ascertain whether the record contains evidence from which a reasonable [jury] could have concluded that age discrimination was a determining factor in [Frieze’s] dismissal.” Brooks v. Monroe Sys. for Business, Inc., 873 F.2d 202, 204 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 853, 110 S.Ct. 154, 107 L.Ed.2d 112 (1989).
  Frieze contends the absorption of his work by other members of the loan department creates a reasonable inference of age discrimination because some of the members were under forty. We disagree. Employers often distribute a discharged employee’s duties to other employees performing related work for legitimate reasons. Boatmen’s distributing Frieze’s work to other members of the loan department does not increase or decrease the likelihood that Boatmen’s discharged Frieze because of his age. Frieze presented no evidence that his discharge was part of a pattern of Boatmen’s discharging employees over forty and distributing their work to younger employees. See Morgan v. Arkansas Gazette, 897 F.2d 945, 950-51 (8th Cir.1990). Thus, the absorption of Frieze’s work by other employees in Boatmen’s loan department does not permit a reasonable inference of discrimination. Although Frieze is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences, an inference is reasonable only if it can be drawn from the evidence without resort to speculation. See Caudill, 919 F.2d at 86.
  Frieze also contends Boatmen’s hiring Wellington creates a reasonable inference of age discrimination. We disagree. Boatmen’s hired Wellington only after Martin resigned from the bank, nearly five months after Frieze was discharged. Given Wellington’s total lack of banking experience and the time lag between Frieze’s discharge and Wellington’s emergence in the loan department as a loan officer, the jury could not reasonably infer Boatmen’s hired Wellington to replace an experienced loan officer like Frieze. See De Arteaga v. Pall Ultrafine Filtration Corp., 862 F.2d 940, 943 (1st Cir.1988). Thus, Boatmen’s hiring Wellington does not create a reasonable inference of age discrimination. Similarly, Boatmen’s promoting Catron and West does not create a reasonable inference of age discrimination because Catron and West were not promoted until Martin resigned from Boatmen’s.
  In an attempt to discredit Boatmen’s stated reason for firing him, Frieze presented evidence showing Martin was not terminated when he made a loan without performing a stock appraisal. Frieze contends the difference between Boatmen’s treatment of him and Boatmen’s treatment of Martin shows Boatmen’s stated reason for firing Frieze was a pretext, and thus, creates an inference of discrimination. Discrediting an employer’s stated reason for discharging an employee can create an inference of age discrimination. See MacDissi v. Valmont Indus., 856 F.2d 1054, 1059 (8th Cir.1988). Boatmen’s stated reason for firing Frieze, however, was not Frieze’s failure to perform a stock appraisal. Thus, evidence that Martin was not fired when he failed to perform a stock appraisal does not create an inference that Boatmen’s discriminated against Frieze.
  Frieze also contends Boatmen’s rating Frieze as competent in its employee performance evaluations discredits Boatmen’s stated reason for firing Frieze. An employer rating an employee as competent discredits the employer’s stated reason for discharging the employee, however, only when the employer’s stated reason is the employee’s general incompetence. See La Montague v. American Convenience Prods., 750 F.2d 1405, 1414 (7th Cir.1984). Boatmen’s stated reason for discharging Frieze was Frieze’s insubordinate response to his superior’s insistence on an in-house stock appraisal, not Frieze’s incompetence. Thus, Boatmen’s rating Frieze as competent does not give rise to an inference of discrimination.
  Finally, Frieze contends comments made to him by Boatmen’s employees create an inference of age discrimination. More than four years before Hartzler discharged Frieze, Hartzler told Frieze that Frieze had “waited too long ... to start [his] effort towards becoming president of a bank and [Frieze] would never make it.” Hartzler made this comment during a general discussion with Frieze about their personal goals. Hartzler had not yet become president of Boatmen’s. Martin and the bank’s cashier also told Frieze that Frieze “was too old and ... had too little rank ... [to become] president of a bank.” When Hartzler terminated Frieze, Hartzler suggested Frieze could not work within the bank’s framework. Martin’s and the cashier’s comments do not create a reasonable inference of age discrimination because Martin and the cashier did not take part in the decision to discharge Frieze. La Montagne, 750 F.2d at 1412. Hartzler’s statement about Frieze’s chances to become president of a bank does not create a reasonable inference of discrimination because Hartzler made this stray remark more than four years before he discharged Frieze. See Guthrie v. Tifco Indus., 941 F.2d 374, 378-79 (5th Cir.1991). Similarly, Hartzler’s statements about Frieze not being able to fit into the bank’s framework are too vague to create a reasonable inference of age discrimination. See id.
  In sum, we conclude the evidence in this case does not support the jury’s verdict that Frieze was discharged because of his age. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court to enter judgment notwithstanding the verdict in Boatmen’s favor.
instruction: What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
  Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
  In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
  To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
  United States of America,
  Plaintiff, Appellant
  v
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendant, Appellee.
  International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
  Defendants, Cross-appellants
  v
  United States of America.
  Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
  of the Board
  Plaintiff, Appellants,
  v
  United States of America,
  Defendant, Appellee.
  This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
  Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
  If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
  Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.