MEMORANDUM ****

Dr. Avrum R. Gratch, M.D. (Dr. Gratch) appeals the adverse summary judgment grant in favor of the Veteran’s Administration (VA), arguing that there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he was fired because of his age.

Although Dr. Gratch may have been able to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, the VA provided a legitimate reason for his termination from a position that (as he acknowledged at his hiring) was both part-time and temporary: The salary for his position was needed to fund a full-time position for Dr. Nicholas Giori, a doctor with exceptional qualifications (including a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering, research contributions to the fields of biomechanics and mechanical engineering, and a Mayo Clinic fellowship). Even if we were to somehow ignore the differences between a part-time and full-time position, selecting a candidate with superior qualifications is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination. See Nidds v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 113 F.3d 912, 918 (9th Cir. 1996).

Dr. Gratch cannot show that this legitimate reason is a pretext for age discrimination, particularly in light of the “strong inference” of non-discrimination that arises because “the same aetorfs]” (Dr. George Sims and Dr. Thomas Burdon) were “responsible for both the hiring and the firing” of Dr. Gratch, and “both actions oecur[red] within a short period of time.” Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace & Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270-71 (9th Cir. 1996). Nor was the stray comment about Dr. Giori being viewed by Stanford as “sort of a shining *980star in—as a young, academic clinical orthopedic surgeon, qualifications which Dr. Gratch does not possess,” sufficient to show pretext. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co., 232 F.3d 1271, 1284-85 (9th Cir. 2000) (employer’s statement that plaintiff was not “young and promotable” insufficient to overcome summary judgment); Nesbit v. Pepsico, 994 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir. 1993) (employer’s statement that “[w]e don’t necessarily like grey hair” insufficient to overcome summary judgment); Merrick v. Farmers Ins. Group, 892 F.2d 1434, 1438-39 (9th Cir. 1990) (hiring supervisor’s statement that he replaced plaintiff with younger worker because we was a “bright, intelligent, knowledgeable young man” insufficient to overcome summary judgment).

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.