An appeals court has reinstated an age discrimination case filed by a terminated hospice employee who had been allegedly subjected to comments including “older people don’t work as fast.”

Cynthia Thomas worked as an account liaison for Toledo, Ohio-based Heartland Employee Services L.L.C. from May 2010 until she was terminated on June, 24, 2011, at age 53, according to Thursday’s ruling by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis in Cynthia Thomas v. Heartland Employment Services L.L.C.

Ms. Thomas said she was also subjected to comments about “having fresh blood, younger employees” by an administrator, G. Dean Hagen, who also described her as “the old short blond girl.” Shortly after her termination, the administrator also allegedly told a client that he “likes to keep himself surrounded with young people.”

Ms. Thomas was told at her termination meeting, which included three people, including the administrator, that it was because she had falsified her travel reimbursement claims. She said her exculpatory information was rejected by those attending her termination meeting.

Ms. Thomas filed suit, charging age discrimination under the Missouri Human Rights Act. The U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Missouri granted Heartland summary judgment dismissing the case, reasoning Ms. Thomas had provided no direct evidence of discrimination, and that Mr. Hagen was not a decision maker or closely involved with the termination decision.

A three-judge panel unanimously overturned the ruling Thursday and reinstated the case. “We conclude that a reasonable jury could infer that Hagen was a decision maker, or was closely involved the decision-making process,” said the ruling,

“Heartland’s representatives at the meeting said that ‘we’ — i.e., a group that included Hagen — made the decision. Hagen himself told another Heartland employee before meeting with Thomas ‘he was going to let her go.’

“A jury could construe these statements and admissions by Hagen or his colleagues at Heartland that Hagen participated in the decision making process,” said the ruling

“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Thomas, we also conclude that the age-related comments that Hagen made in the workplace were sufficiently related to Thomas and to the decisional process to constitute direct evidence of discrimination,” said the panel, in reinstating the case.