KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Robert Bledsoe, a nuclear-plant operator working for the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), alleges that the Authority discriminated against him based on his age and disability in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Rehabilitation Act. Citing ethical concerns that arose when Bledsoe’s son was accepted to the training program that Bledsoe taught, a committee overseeing the training center voted to demote Bledsoe from his instructor position. One of the members of the committee, Bledsoe’s supervisor, had repeatedly made disparaging remarks about Bledsoe’s age and disability in the months prior to the committee’s decision. A reasonable jury could conclude that Bledsoe’s supervisor used the ethical concern as a pretext to convince the other members of the committee to demote him. We REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings.

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. After the plaintiffs, a group of wineries and an association representing their interests (collectively, the “Wineries”), sued a Michigan municipality over several zoning ordinances that regulate vineyards, a local advocacy group, Protect the Peninsula, Inc. (“Protect the Peninsula”), moved to intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). The district court denied this motion. Because Protect the Peninsula satisfied Rule 24(a)(2)’s requirements, we REVERSE and REMAND.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Todd Moats suffers from peripheral neuropathy, which prevents him from wearing closed-toed shoes for lengthy periods. This condition caused Moats to leave his job as a forklift operator and apply for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income through the Social Security Administration. Following a hearing, an administrative law judge found that Moats’s condition prevented him from returning to his previous job. Nonetheless, because, as the ALJ found, Moats could still perform a number of jobs available throughout the national economy, his application for benefits was denied. As substantial evidence supports that determination, we affirm. In so doing, we reject Moats’s argument that the ALJ failed to adequately develop the record.