Vanya Haglof appeals the grant of summary judgment by the district court1 dismissing her claim brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34 (1988) (ADEA), against her former employer Northwest Rehabilitation, Inc. We reverse.
BACKGROUND
Haglof was 51 years old when Northwest terminated her and temporarily filled her position with the president’s 21-year-old daughter. Northwest claimed that the termination was part of a restructuring of the workforce at the nursing home where Ha-glof worked — a restructuring that eliminated her position and replaced it with one requiring higher credentials. Haglof claimed, however, that the restructuring did not occur until shortly after she filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming age discrimination. In the intervening month her replacement, the president’s daughter, also lacked the higher credentials. Northwest asserted that it had intended to restructure immediately upon terminating Haglof, but at the last minute the candidate to replace her became unavailable, and it took a month to find another with suitable credentials. Haglof responded that Northwest was unable to produce any evidence to prove the existence of this prior candidate, including her name or a copy of her application. Haglof also asserted that the restructuring was merely a shifting of labels with no practical effect on the staff’s size or duties at the nursing home.2
The district court initially held that Ha-glof had established a prima facie case of age discrimination because 1) she was in the protected age bracket; 2) her job performance was satisfactory; 3) she was discharged; and 4) she was replaced, at least temporarily, with a younger person who would provide the same service or skill. See Clements v. General Accident Ins. Co. of America, 821 F.2d 489 (8th Cir.1987). The court then concluded, however, that Northwest had produced evidence showing a legitimate, non-discriminatory explanation for the termination. The court therefore addressed whether Haglof ultimately had introduced enough evidence for a jury to find that, notwithstanding Northwest’s purportedly neutral restructuring, age discrimination was a substantial factor in her dismissal. The court found the evidence insufficient as a matter of law.
DISCUSSION
We find that the district court misconstrued principles governing the inference of discriminatory intent which the jury may find from plaintiff’s proof of a prima facie case.
As the Supreme Court has explained, discrimination is difficult to prove by direct evidence. United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711, 716, 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1482, 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). The plaintiff therefore is allowed to benefit from an inference of discrimination simply upon proof that she was in the protected age category, she was performing adequately in her job, and she was fired and replaced by a younger person with no better credentials. The Supreme Court explained the reasoning behind this inference in Furnco Constr. Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 577, 98 S.Ct. 2943, 2949, 57 L.Ed.2d 957 (1978):
*494A prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas raises an inference of discrimination only because we presume these acts, if otherwise unexplained, are more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors. And we are willing to presume this largely because we know from our experience that more often than not people do not act in a totally arbitrary manner, without any underlying reasons, especially in a business setting. Thus, when all legitimate reasons for [firing an employee within the protected age group] have been eliminated as possible reasons for the employer’s actions, it is more likely than not the employer, who we generally assume acts only with some reason, based his decision on an impermissible consideration.
When the employer comes forward with a nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiffs dismissal, the plaintiff has the burden “to demonstrate that the proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision.” Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 1095, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). The plaintiff “may succeed in this either directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence. ” Id. (emphasis added).
Thus, the plaintiff need not produce direct evidence of discriminatory intent even to discredit the employer’s proffered explanation. Her evidence need only show she was in the protected category performing satisfactorily when she was fired and replaced by a younger person having no better credentials, and that the employer’s explanation for its actions, if any, is not credible. Indirect proof suffices on the last element of plaintiff’s case because,
[a]s a matter of both common sense and federal law, an employer’s submission of - a discredited explanation for firing a member of a protected class is itself evidence which may persuade the finder of fact that such unlawful discrimination actually occurred.
MacDissi v. Valmont Indus., Inc., 856 F.2d 1054, 1059 (8th Cir.1988); see also Chipollini v. Spencer Gifts, Inc., 814 F.2d 893 (3d Cir.) (en banc) (merely discrediting employer’s explanation sufficient for jury to find discrimination), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1052, 108 S.Ct. 26, 97 L.Ed.2d 815 (1987); Dace v. ACF Indus., Inc., 722 F.2d 374 (8th Cir.1983) (same).
Moreover, in order to discredit the employer’s explanation the plaintiff need not produce additional evidence beyond that in the prima facie case. As the Supreme Court wrote in Burdine,
A satisfactory explanation by the defendant destroys the legally mandatory inference of discrimination arising from the plaintiff’s initial evidence. Nonetheless, this evidence * * * may be considered by the trier of fact on the issue of whether the defendant’s explanation is pretextual. Indeed, there may be some cases where the plaintiff’s initial evidence, combined with effective cross-examination of the defendant, will suffice to discredit the defendant’s explanation.
450 U.S. at 255 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. at 1095 n. 10. We referred to this language in Muldrew v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 728 F.2d 989, 991 (8th Cir.1984), where we wrote, “[i]n persuading the court, the plaintiff may rely solely on the evidence it presented in establishing the prima facie case or it may introduce additional evidence.” Again, in Hillebrand v. M-Tron Indus., Inc., 827 F.2d 363, 365 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1004, 109 S.Ct. 782, 102 L.Ed.2d 774 (1989), we stated, “the plaintiff’s proof may well convince the factfinder that the employer’s reason was pretextual and that the plaintiff’s prima facie proof sustained the case.” See also Bethea v. Levi Strauss & Co., 827 F.2d 355 (8th Cir.1987) (although defendant presented evidence plaintiff was fired due to necessary reduction in force, case was properly submitted to jury based on evidence in plaintiff’s prima facie case that plaintiff had received honors and awards for his employment performance, and employer might not have followed objective policy in dismissing him). For this reason we cautioned in Hil-*495lebrand that “[s]ummary judgments should seldom be used in cases alleging employment discrimination.”3 827 F.2d at 364.
In the present case Haglof introduced evidence, beyond that set forth in her pri-ma facie case, sufficient for the jury to find that the restructuring was a sham. She suggested the restructuring was not undertaken until after she filed her EEOC complaint charging age discrimination, and she pointed out that Northwest could not produce evidence to show even that it had contemplated the restructuring before Ha-glof’s EEOC complaint. Furthermore, she presented evidence which a jury could find to show .that the restructuring had no practical effect on the workforce at the nursing home.
As discussed above, if this evidence leads the jury to doubt Northwest’s explanation of its restructuring, the jury could then infer Northwest harbored an impermissible motive. The remaining evidence — that Ha-glof, a person in the protected age bracket, was fired and replaced by the president’s daughter — could lead the jury to conclude that the real reason for Haglof’s termination was either age discrimination or nepotism. Nepotism, of course, is not grounds for recovery under the ADEA. However, sorting out these possible motivations is a matter for the jury and not for a court.
Reversed.
STUART, Senior District Judge,. The Honorable Diana E. Murphy, United States District Court for the District of Minnesota.
. The nursing home employs three levels of physical therapy staff, each requiring a different level of education. A registered physical therapist (therapist) has a four-year college degree and is licensed by the state. A physical therapist assistant (assistant) has a two-year degree and license. A therapy aide (aide) does not need a post-high school degree. Before the restructuring Northwest employed one full-time and one part-time therapist, one full-time assistant, and one full-time and one part-time aide. Haglof was the full-time aide. The restructuring eliminated the part-time therapist position, and changed Haglofs full-time aide position into a full-time assistant. Haglof acknowledges that assistants can write patient charts while aides cannot; however, she argues changing her aide job to the assistant level had no practical effect because past practice was for aides to “ghost write” patient charts for assistants to sign.
. Because the district court found a prima facie case, we need not discuss our opinion in Holley v. Sanyo Mfg., Inc., 771 F.2d 1161 (8th Cir.1985), which addressed the requirements of a prima facie case in the context of a large-scale reduction in force undertaken pursuant to a facially objective plan. The district court here was correct in finding a prima facie case because, “[i]n proving a prima facie case, the plaintiff is not required to adopt as part of his case the reason given by the employer.” Hillebrand, 827 F.2d at 365.