42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

A plaintiff alleging gender-based disparate treatment must show that the employer treated similarly situated employees outside her protected class more favorably.

Wood v. K-Mart Corporation · filed 2008-04-09(a)

In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment based on gender discrimination, a plaintiff must show four things: (1) that she is a member of a protected class; (2) that she was qualified for her job; (3) that she suffered an adverse employment action; and (4) that her employer treated similarly situated employees who are not members of the protected class more favorably. ... Wood’s gender discrimination fails because she is unable to satisfy the fourth prong of a prima facie case.

A plaintiff alleging discrimination under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) must present competent evidence that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

Murungi v. Xavier University of Louisiana · filed 2008-04-15(a)(1)

Reviewing the summary judgment record de novo, we find that Murungi has failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Although there may be some evidence of the first three elements, Murungi has failed to present competent summary judgment evidence on the fourth element of establishing that others were similarly situated but were treated more favorably.

A Title VII plaintiff using other employees as comparators must show they were treated more favorably by the same decisionmaker.

Ellis, Gerald C. v. UPS of America · filed 2008-04-29

So, to be similarly situated, a manager must have been treated more favorably by the same decisionmaker that fired the Ellis.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits discharge based on race; a plaintiff relying on comparators must show that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class was treated more favorably.

Howard v. Oregon Television, Inc. · filed 2008-05-06(a)(1)

Howard has therefore not shown that a similarly situated employee outside his protected class was treated more favorably.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a discriminatory-discharge plaintiff relying on a comparator to show that the other employee was similarly situated in relevant respects.

Richardson v. Alabama Pine Pulp Co. Inc. · filed 2008-05-13(a)(1)

Second, while Hollingsworth may have been counseled for excessive phone usage and some other similar misconduct, she was not similarly situated to Richardson because Hollingsworth never was the subject of a customer complaint that cost APPC half a million dollars and never was in violation of two “Last Chance Agreements,” like Richardson was.

A Title VII racial discrimination plaintiff relying on a comparison employee must show that the relevant aspects of their employment were nearly identical.

Triplett v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT · filed 2008-06-16(a)(1)

Based on the evidence presented to the Court, the Court finds that the relevant aspects of Plaintiffs employment are not “nearly identical” to those of Mr. Waites. Plaintiff failed to prove that he and Mr. Waites were similarly situated. Therefore, Plaintiff has also failed make a prima facie case of racial discrimination and has shown no set of facts which create a genuine issue for trial of discrimination.

Under § 2000e-2(a), a plaintiff using another employee to prove discriminatory discipline must show comparable misconduct and more favorable treatment.

Jones v. Alabama Power Company · filed 2008-06-23(a)

These facts, coupled with the fact that Jones had a past disciplinary record, establish that Jones and Cobbs are not “similarly situated” for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires substantially similar disciplinary histories when a plaintiff uses coworkers’ different treatment to support a national origin discrimination claim.

Avila v. Jostens, Inc. · filed 2008-05-20(a)

Plaintiff has failed to show that these comparators were similarly situated to him. Individuals are considered “similarly situated” when they deal with the same supervisor, are subjected to the same standards governing performance evaluation and discipline, and have engaged in conduct of “comparable seriousness.”

For a Title VII disparate-treatment claim based on indirect evidence, employees subject to different workplace injury policies are not similarly situated comparators.

Cole v. Taber · filed 2008-07-09(a)(1)

Because Hughes suffered an on-the-job injury and Plaintiff did not, they were subject to different DOC policies. Therefore, Hughes and Plaintiff are not “similarly situated” persons for purposes of Title VII analysis.

A plaintiff using more favorable treatment of other employees to prove race discrimination must identify employees whose situations are nearly identical in relevant respects.

McFadden v. Ballard, Spahr, Andrews, & Ingersoll, LLP · filed 2008-09-30(a)(1)

Accordingly, McFadden’s employment situation was not “nearly identical” to her alleged comparators, and thus no reasonable jury could find that she was treated differently from similarly situated employees. Defendants are therefore entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiffs Title VII and DCHRA race discrimination claims.

A plaintiff alleging disparate treatment cannot establish a prima facie case with comparators whose misconduct was not nearly identical to her own.

Yolanda Reeves v. Yeager · filed 2008-10-31(a)

Therefore, we conclude that Reeves failed to establish a prima facie case of race and gender discrimination because her alleged comparators were not similarly situated in that their actions were not nearly identical to Reeves’s informing her friend that the Sheriff’s Office discovered a photograph possibly linking the friend’s daughter-in-law to criminal activity.

A race discrimination plaintiff using the indirect method must show that an employee outside the protected class who received more favorable treatment was similarly situated in all material respects.

Forrester v. Rauland-Borg Corp. · filed 2008-11-16(a)(1)

Viewing all of these factors together, Forrester cannot establish that he and Cox are similarly situated for purposes of a Title VII claim, and therefore his Title VII case is doomed.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), an employee using comparator evidence to establish discrimination must show that a more favorably treated employee engaged in similar misconduct and had the same supervisors.

Jusuf v. Southwest Airln Co · filed 2008-11-20(a)(1)

For conduct to be nearly identical, the individual given ... preferential treatment needs to have engaged in similar conduct to Jusuf (i.e., accepted gratuities and improperly waived upgrade fees), and must have the same supervisors as Jusuf.

A plaintiff claiming disparate treatment based on circumstantial evidence must show that the employer treated a similarly situated employee outside the plaintiff’s protected class more favorably.

Hooks v. Georgia Department of Corrections · filed 2009-02-12(a)(1)

Therefore, Hooks cannot meet the fourth prong of the prima facie case of discrimination, because she has not presented any employee at all, much less one outside of her protected class, who was retained by the DOC despite engaging in conduct similar to that for which she was terminated.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff relying on comparisons with other employees to show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated differently.

John Miller, Jr. v. City of Canton, Ohio · filed 2009-04-03(a)(1)

We are unable to find, therefore, that Vega, Ream, or Myers were similarly situated to Fowler and treated differently from him. Because Fowler failed to make out the fourth element of his prima facie case, his claim for racial discrimination cannot survive the City’s motion for summary judgment.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff using the indirect method must identify a similarly situated employee outside the protected class who received more favorable treatment.

Antonetti v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 2009-04-21(a)(1)

Without a similarly situated employee, Plaintiffs cannot present a prima facie case and their claim must fail.

A disparate treatment plaintiff using employees as comparators must show that their misconduct was nearly identical to hers.

Roxbury-Smellie v. Florida Department of Corrections · filed 2009-04-24(a)

We “require that the quantity and quality of the comparator’s misconduct be nearly identical to prevent courts from second-guessing employers’ reasonable decisions and confusing apples with oranges.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff relying on comparators to show that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably; missing the same performance benchmarks does not make employees comparable when their performance differs substantially.

Johnson v. Miller Brewing Company · filed 2009-06-18(a)(1)

Since Johnson was the worst performer of the three, he failed to prove a prima facie case that similarly situated employees were treated more favorably by Miller.

In a national-origin disparate-treatment claim involving employee misconduct, the plaintiff must show that employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably under nearly identical circumstances.

Pita Santos v. EVERGREEN ALLIANCE GOLF LTD., LP · filed 2009-06-30(a)

Pita Santos has failed to identify any support for an inference that other EAGL employees were treated more favorably under “nearly identical circumstances.” There is no allegation or evidence in the record of employees outside the protected class with similar job responsibilities who engaged in similar misconduct but who were not fired.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a race discrimination plaintiff to establish a prima facie case by showing that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class received more favorable treatment under nearly identical circumstances.

Lee v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. · filed 2009-06-30(a)

As we conclude that Bickham is a satisfactory comparator, we hold that Lee established a prima facie case of Title VII racial discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff using the indirect method to prove sex-based pay discrimination to identify a similarly situated employee of the opposite sex who was paid more.

Mayden v. SUPERIOR AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. · filed 2009-07-10(a)(1)

The unrebutted evidence is that while Mr. Burchett was treated more favorably in pay than Ms. Mayden, he was not a comparably situated co-employee. Superior is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Ms. Mayden’s Title VII disparate treatment claim based on the disparity of her pay and Mr. Burchett’s pay.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires employees offered as comparators in a disparate treatment claim to be similarly situated to the plaintiff.

Martin v. Gutierrez · filed 2009-09-30(a)(1)

This disparate treatment argument ultimately fails, however, because the agency personnel who plaintiff references are not similarly situated to her.

A race discrimination plaintiff who relies on disparate treatment must show that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Taylor v. Seton-Brackenridge Hospital · filed 2009-09-30(a)(1)

To satisfy this element, Taylor must provide evidence of another employee in a similar position accused of similar impropriety in the workplace who was treated more favorably than himself. ... Taylor failed to provide evidence of the fourth element of the prima facie case of discrimination.

When an employee uses a coworker to show discriminatory discipline under Title VII, the complaints against them must be nearly identical in quantity and quality.

Richard Botelho, Jr. v. Johnson · filed 2009-11-18(a)(1)

Botelho failed to prove that he had been treated different from a similarly situated female or non-caucasian employee in the Department. Botelho argues that he was disciplined for licensee complaints when a female employee, Taylor, was not penalized, but the complaints against Taylor were not “nearly identical . . . [in] quantity or quality” to the complaints against Botelho.

A sex discrimination claim based on unequal discipline fails at the prima facie stage when the proposed comparator did not engage in nearly identical misconduct.

Escarra v. Regions Bank · filed 2009-11-27(a)

Accordingly, because Escarra and Saltmarsh did not engage in “nearly identical” misconduct, the district court did not err in finding she failed to make a prima facie case for sex discrimination.

A race-discrimination plaintiff relying on a more favorably treated employee as a comparator must show that their circumstances, including misconduct, were nearly identical.

Gilbert v. Brookshires Grocery Co · filed 2009-12-08(a)(1)

In order for employees to be considered similarly situated, an employee alleging discrimination must show that the employees’ circumstances, including their misconduct, were nearly identical.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory discipline under § 2000e-2(a) must identify a similarly situated employee who engaged in similar misconduct but received less severe discipline.

Paul Roy Smith, III v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. · filed 2009-12-10(a)

We thus conclude that Smith has not identified any other Sunbelt employee – including Colley – who made a racially discriminatory remark to a co-employee or who engaged in similar conduct from which to establish a prima facie case.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff using another employee as a comparator to show that the employees were similarly situated; a supervisor with different qualifications cannot serve as a comparator for a subordinate.

Popo v. Giant Foods LLC · filed 2009-12-11(a)(1)

As Wink was not similarly situated to Popo, his subordinate, he cannot be used as a comparator to show disparate treatment.

A discrimination plaintiff cannot establish pretext through different treatment of coworkers unless their circumstances were nearly identical.

McGarry v. University of Mississippi Medical Center · filed 2009-12-15(a)(1)

However, the uncontradicted summary judgment evidence indicated that Gilmore had not accused these nurses of physical abuse. Therefore, the appellant has failed to present summary judgment evidence demonstrating that other nurses were not transferred under “nearly identical circumstances.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff relying on comparators to show that employees outside the protected class were similarly situated in all relevant respects.

Coar v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc. · filed 2010-02-25(a)(1)

Coar has failed to satisfy the prima facie requirement for disparate treatment in part because he did not present valid comparators.

A race discrimination plaintiff cannot use employees as comparators when they did not engage in the misconduct that led to the plaintiff’s termination.

Baker v. Russell Corporation · filed 2010-04-12(a)

Further, Kelly and Pitts were not comparable to Baker and Thomas because, although both Pitts and Thomas were habitually late, there is no evidence that Kelly falsified Pitts’s time sheets.

A coworker with a different job, supervisor, and conduct does not establish an inference of sex discrimination as a similarly situated comparator under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Vernon v. A&L Motors · filed 2010-05-26(a)(1)

The only comparator Vernon identifies is Koski. However, Koski performed a different job than Vernon, in a different department, for a different supervisor.

An employee relying on circumstantial comparator evidence to prove race discrimination must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received different treatment.

Dickens v. Interstate Brands Corporation · filed 2010-07-02(a)(1)

Because the evidence Dickens presented to the district court cannot establish that he was treated differently than similarly situated others outside of his protected class, no genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to the fourth element of the prima facie case required by the McDonnell Douglas framework and judgment as a matter of law is appropriate for IBC.

In a Title VII disparate treatment claim, a harassment complaint against one group of employees may materially distinguish them from coworkers whose similar conduct drew no complaint.

Hawn v. Executive Jet Management, Inc. · filed 2010-08-16(a)(1)

Moreover, plaintiffs and the female flight attendants are distinguishable because plaintiffs’ conduct gave rise to a complaint of sexual harassment, while the female flight attendants’ alleged conduct did not.

A Title VII pay discrimination claim based on a more favorably treated comparator requires the comparator to be similarly situated in all relevant respects.

Crayton v. Valued Services of Alabama, LLC · filed 2010-09-02(a)(1)

Regarding the third prong of the inquiry, “[t]he plaintiff and the employee she identifies as a comparator must be similarly situated in all relevant respects. The comparator must be nearly identical to the plaintiff to prevent courts from second-guessing a reasonable decision by the employer.” ... Accordingly, summary judgment shall be granted in favor of Defendant on Plaintiffs Title VII and § 1981 discrimination claims.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff using differential treatment to show pretext must provide adequate evidence that the other employees were similarly situated.

Ayala-Gonzalez v. Toledo-Davila · filed 2010-09-09(a)(1)

By offering only vague evidence that two male employees were reinstated after testing positive for drug use, Plaintiff simply failed to provide the jury with adequate evidence to find that these two male employees were sufficiently similarly situated to Plaintiff to support her claim that Defendant’s proffered reason for her dismissal was pretextual.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff relying on comparators to show that employees outside her protected class with nearly identical misconduct were treated more favorably.

Brown v. Jacobs Engineering, Inc. · filed 2010-10-28(a)(1)

Even if Brown was similar in some respects, such as having a difficult personality or management style, the other managers are still not similarly situated because Brown’s overall record was far worse.

A racial discrimination claim based on hiring requires a similarly situated comparator; an applicant who failed a required exam is not similarly situated to one who passed it.

Milton Atterberry, Jr. v. City of Laurel · filed 2010-11-10(a)(1)

Even assuming without deciding that Atterberry was qualified for safety coordinator and that the difference in experience between Atterberry and Adams was trivial, Atterberry has not shown that his situation is nearly identical to that of someone who passed the required exam.

For a discriminatory discipline claim under Section 2000e-2(a)(1), a plaintiff must identify a similarly situated employee outside the protected class whose misconduct was nearly identical but who was treated more favorably.

Walton-Horton v. Hyundai of AL etc. · filed 2010-10-21(a)(1)

Here, Walton-Horton failed to identify any male comparators who engaged in conduct “nearly identical” to that for which she was discharged.

A disparate treatment plaintiff must show that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class received better treatment for nearly identical misconduct.

Toronka v. Continental Airlines, Inc. · filed 2011-02-14(a)(1)

That employees’ situations must be nearly identical means, inter alia, that the misconduct they engaged in must be nearly identical.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge through comparator evidence must identify similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s protected class who engaged in nearly identical conduct but were not discharged.

Stephens v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF AUBURN UNIVERSITY · filed 2011-03-02(a)(1)

Accordingly, to determine whether Stephens has satisfied his prima facie case, this court must evaluate whether Stephens can point to any similarly situated females who engaged in nearly identical conduct and were not terminated.

A religious-discrimination plaintiff using the indirect method of proof must show that similarly situated employees outside her protected group were treated more favorably.

Matthews v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 2011-03-31(a)(1)

To survive summary judgment under the indirect method of proof, Matthews must provide evidence that, among other things, Wal-Mart treated similarly situated employees outside of Matthews’ protected group more favorably.

A sex-discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) can proceed when a reasonable jury could find that a similarly situated man was treated more favorably and that the employer’s explanation was pretextual.

Xu v. Board of Trustees of the University · filed 2011-06-29(a)(1)

Thus, an issue of material fact exists as to whether Xu and Leopold were similarly situated upon Xu’s termination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires evidence that an employer knew of comparable conduct before its more favorable treatment of another employee can support an inference of sex discrimination.

Littlefield v. AutoTrader.com · filed 2011-07-12(a)(1)

In the absence of proof that defendant was presented with a complaint or was otherwise made aware of comparable conduct on the part of a female employee, and treated the female employee more favorably than it treated plaintiff, no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment by AutoTrader to the benefit of a comparator who was similarly situated in all material respects.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a difference between employees does not defeat a similarly situated comparison if the employer did not consider that difference when making its decision.

Eaton v. Indiana Department of Corrections · filed 2011-09-09(a)(1)

Factors never considered by the employer cannot provide any insight as to whether the employer’s decision was motivated by discriminatory intent.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff relying on comparisons with other employees to show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Summers v. Powell · filed 2011-09-21(a)(1)

Because none of the proffered employees are proper comparators to Summers, she fails to establish a prima facie case for discrimination. We conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the City on Summers’s race and sex discrimination claims under Title VII and § 1981.

A plaintiff cannot establish disparate treatment under Title VII using employees who are not similarly situated as comparators.

Street v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2011-09-28(a)(1)

In this case, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate disparate treatment between Plaintiff and comparator employees because they are not “similarly situated in all relevant respects.”

A gender discrimination plaintiff relying on comparators must identify people outside the protected class in nearly identical circumstances who were treated more favorably.

Barrientos v. City of Eagle Pass, Texas · filed 2011-10-04(a)(1)

A gender discrimination plaintiff must identify individuals outside the protected class that were “similarly situated” or in “nearly identical” circumstances who were treated more favorably.

To establish disparate treatment in a race-based discharge claim, an employee comparing attendance records must identify employees with comparable absences who received more favorable treatment.

Kittling v. Centennial Beauregard Cellular, L.L.C. · filed 2011-10-31(a)(1)

We agree with the district court that, when addressing whether similarly situated individuals were treated more favorably, the proper comparison is between Plaintiff and individuals with numerous absences, as opposed to employees with a single unexcused absence, as urged by Plaintiff.

A Title VII plaintiff relying on more favorable treatment of other employees to infer discrimination must identify similarly situated employees.

Sewell v. Hertrich Investments, Ltd. · filed 2011-11-10(a)(1)

Contrary to plaintiffs assertion, similarly situated non-Jamaicans were not treated more favorably than plaintiff. While plaintiff argues that Caucasian salespersons are valid comparators, these individuals hold vastly different, and presumably more senior, positions than plaintiff.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires proposed comparators in a discrimination claim to be directly comparable to the plaintiff in all material respects.

Abuelyaman v. Illinois State University · filed 2011-12-13(a)

Yet Abuelyaman still must demonstrate that his purported comparators are “directly comparable to [him] in all material respects.”

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a disparate treatment plaintiff who relies on a coworker comparison to show that the coworker was similarly situated in relevant respects.

Glenn v. Raymour · filed 2011-12-22(a)(1)

In sum, Raymours’ treatment of Faust cannot raise an inference of unlawful discrimination regarding Glenn’s termination because there are differentiating and mitigating circumstances that significantly distinguish both their conduct and Raymours’ treatment of them.

A Title VII race-discrimination plaintiff relying on a more favorably treated employee must show that they were similarly situated in all relevant respects and engaged in nearly identical misconduct.

Lee v. United States Steel Corporation · filed 2012-01-04(a)(1)

As a result, Lee and Snell were not “similarly situated in all relevant respects” and their respective instances of misconduct were not “nearly identical,” and Lee therefore failed to present a prima facie case of racial discrimination.

A Title VII race-discrimination plaintiff relying on more favorable treatment of other employees must show that those employees were similarly situated in all relevant respects.

Ayers-Jennings v. Fred's, Inc. · filed 2012-02-13

To support an inference of unlawful discrimination, comparable non-minority employees who received more favorable treatment than plaintiff must be shown to be similarly situated in all relevant respects.

A race discrimination plaintiff relying on comparators must identify similarly situated employees who received more favorable treatment; employees with different areas of responsibility do not qualify.

Prince D. Brown v. School Board of Orange County, Florida · filed 2012-02-28(a)(1)

Here, we conclude from the record that the district court correctly determined that Brown could not establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination because he could not identify a similarly situated employee.

In a sex discrimination claim for failure to rehire, male applicants hired for the same job can establish the plaintiff’s prima facie comparison even if the employer claims they had stronger qualifications.

McBrian v. Rieth-Riley Construction Co. · filed 2012-03-23(a)(1)

Nothing more is required for prima facie comparators on this record. Rieth-Riley may well have had valid reasons for preferring some or all of its actual hires over Plaintiff, but the proper place to test those reasons is the second and third steps of the analysis, not the prima facie case itself.

A plaintiff claiming gender-based disparate treatment must show that similarly situated employees of another gender were treated differently; their misconduct must be nearly identical in quality and quantity.

Valdes v. Miami-Dade College · filed 2012-03-26(a)(1)

The quality and quantity of the plaintiff’s and the comparators’ ... misconduct must be “nearly identical” in order to prevent courts from second-guessing reasonable employer decisions by comparing apples with oranges.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory hiring under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must show that the successful applicants outside the protected class had similar qualifications.

Jones v. City of Franklin · filed 2012-03-29(a)(1)

But he failed to establish that he had job qualifications similar to those of the successful white applicants, as is required by the fourth element of the prima facie test.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably under nearly identical circumstances; differences in disciplinary history matter.

Johnson v. JP Morgan Chase Bank · filed 2012-04-04(a)(1)

Under this fact scenario, we agree with the district court’s holding that Johnson has not made a prima facie case for racial discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires employees offered as comparators in a disparate-treatment claim to have nearly identical circumstances; comparably serious misconduct alone is insufficient.

Brown v. Board of Trustees Sealy Independent School District · filed 2012-05-09(a)(1)

Comparably serious misconduct, by itself, is not enough to make employees similarly situated.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) permits a race discrimination claim to reach a jury when different treatment of similarly situated employees supports a reasonable finding that race partly motivated a termination.

Williams v. Mount Sinai Medical Center · filed 2012-05-08(a)(1)

Viewing all of the evidence in the light most favorable to Williams, and drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, a rational juror could find that Mt. Sinai terminated Williams in part because she is black.

When an employee disputes the alleged misconduct, courts compare employees based on the alleged conduct when deciding whether they are similarly situated for a race discrimination claim.

Raymond Davis, Sr. v. City of Clarksville · filed 2012-07-13(a)(1)

Where, as here, the plaintiff disputes that he engaged in the conduct for which he was disciplined, the principles of summary judgment counsel against considering the truth of the alleged misconduct in identifying a similarly situated individual.

A plaintiff using other employees as comparators to show discrimination must show that they were subject to the same standards, committed comparably serious acts, and received less severe punishment.

Risco v. McHugh · filed 2012-06-14(a)

In addition to identifying similarly situated employees who are subject to the same performance evaluation and discipline standards, a plaintiff must also show that those employees engaged in acts of comparable seriousness but were not punished as severely as plaintiff.

When a plaintiff relies on a comparator to prove discrimination under § 2000e-2(a), the comparator’s performance problems must be sufficiently similar to support an inference of discrimination.

Frazier v. Doosan Infracore International, Inc. · filed 2012-06-26(a)

The district court did not err in granting Doosan’s motion for summary judgment. As to Frazier’s discrimination claims regarding his performance rating, performance improvement plan, and termination, he did not establish a prima facie case because Schultz was not a sufficiently similar comparator.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a plaintiff relying on comparator evidence to identify similarly situated employees outside the protected class who were treated differently.

Simionescu v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, the · filed 2012-07-11(a)

Because Simionescu failed to identify any similarly situated comparators, Simionescu failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment on this issue.

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination by showing that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably.

MacDonald-Bass v. JE Johnson Contracting, Inc. · filed 2012-08-13(a)(1)

Although both MacDonald-Bass and Praither suffered a work-related injury and were placed on medical leave, Praither has not attempted to return to work nor is there evidence he has been cleared to return. He is therefore not a similarly situated employee.

An employee alleging discrimination through indirect proof must identify more favorably treated employees outside the protected class who are similarly situated; employees with different skills needed for available positions are not valid comparators.

Darbha v. Capgemini America Inc. · filed 2012-08-20(a)(1)

It is not enough for Darbha to identify employees outside his protected class whom Capgemini re tained; if these employees actually had computer skills that Darbha lacked and that Capgemini needed then they are not similarly situated.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging discriminatory raises based on national origin to show less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees outside the protected class.

Lucero v. Sandia Corporation · filed 2012-08-28(a)(1)

In sum, because Ms. Lucero has failed to provide any evidence that she was treated differently from any similarly situated employees, who were not in protected classes based on age or national origin, she has failed to make out a prima facie case of discrimination.

Under § 2000e-2(a), a plaintiff relying on a comparator to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination must show that the comparator was similarly situated.

Savage v. Georgia Department of Transportation · filed 2012-09-20(a)

Savage failed to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because he could not show that his comparator and he were similarly situated.

For a circumstantial race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), coworkers with different job titles may be valid comparators if they are similarly situated in relevant respects.

Wiggins v. McHugh · filed 2012-10-02(a)(1)

In short, for purposes of summary judgment consideration, the Court finds Swift and Harper to be valid comparators, and in doing so, Plaintiff has at least created a material fact question pertaining to a prima facie case of discrimination.

A Title VII plaintiff relying on comparators must show similarly situated employees with comparable responsibilities and disciplinary histories to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Marlin Player v. Kansas City Southern Rwy Co. · filed 2012-11-16

Player has failed to establish a prima facie case. We base our decision not on the individuals’ different job titles but rather on the record evidence indicating that they did not perform the same functions, have the same responsibilities, or have comparable disciplinary histories.

A plaintiff relying on comparator evidence for a sex discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must identify employees similarly situated in relevant respects, including their positions and physical restrictions.

Scott v. Donahoe · filed 2012-12-20(a)(1)

After a review of the record and arguments of the parties, the Court finds that the four female employees identified by Plaintiff are not similarly situated because they worked in different positions prior to the National Reassessment Program and/or had different physical restrictions.

A plaintiff alleging gender discrimination through circumstantial evidence must show that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably to establish a prima facie case.

Ates-Jackson v. Verizon Wireless (VAW) LLC · filed 2013-01-30(a)(1)

Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) her employer treated similarly situated employees not of the protected class more favorably; and (4) she was qualified for the job at issue. ... Overall, the district court properly concluded that Ates-Jackson failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

A plaintiff alleging race discrimination based on more favorable treatment of coworkers must show that those coworkers were similarly situated in relevant respects.

Oliver v. Clinical Practices of University of Pennsylvania · filed 2013-02-04(a)(1)

In sum, we conclude that Plaintiff has failed to present a prima facie case to support an inference of discrimination or otherwise establish that she was treated less favorably than other “similarly situated” co-workers.

A race discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1) fails under the indirect method of proof when the employee has no evidence that similarly situated employees outside his protected class received more favorable treatment.

Brown v. Illinois Department of Natural Resources · filed 2013-03-19(a)(1)

Brown’s case fails on the last element of the indirect method of proof; he presented no evidence that the Department treated similarly situated white employees more favorably.

A plaintiff relying on different treatment of employees outside a protected class to establish a prima facie race discrimination claim must show those employees were similarly situated.

Davis v. City of Memphis Fire Department · filed 2013-04-16(a)(1)

Therefore, because Davis fails to show Manus and Kramer were similarly situated, he fails to make out his prima facie case for racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 or 42 U.S.C. § 1981 with respect to his termination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence of discrimination to show that an employee outside the protected class received more favorable treatment under comparable circumstances.

Dodd v. Donahoe · filed 2013-04-19(a)(1)

Dodd has not met the prima facie requirement because he failed to allege that any mail carrier outside the protected class was treated more favorably than he was by not being subjected to criminal prosecution after receiving similar customer complaints.

A sex discrimination claim based on comparisons with male coworkers needs facts showing that the coworkers were similarly situated.

Sawyers v. United Parcel Service · filed 2013-05-16(a)

These allegations fail to satisfy the fourth element of the prima facie test, however, because there is no evidence that these male drivers are similarly situated beyond Sawyers’ bare, conclusory allegation in paragraph eight.

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a race-discrimination plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must show that similarly situated employees outside his class were treated more favorably to establish a prima facie case.

Beasley Singleton v. Auburn University Montgomery · filed 2013-05-30(a)(1)

Because Singleton did not present evidence that similarly-situated employees outside his class were treated more favorably, he has failed to make a prima facie case of discrimination.

Employees subject to different discipline standards are not similarly situated comparators for a racial discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1).

Trent v. Town of Brookhaven · filed 2013-08-15(a)(1)

Here, however, Mr. Walsh was a full-time employee, whereas Plaintiff was a part-time employee. (Diamonte Aff. ¶¶ 7-8.) Accordingly, the two were not subject to the same discipline standards. Specifically, Defendant could not terminate full-time employees without disciplinary charges and a hearing, whereas part-time employees could be terminated without such procedures. (Diamonte Aff. ¶¶ 7-8.) Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case in this respect.

A Title VII sex discrimination claimant must show different treatment of a similarly situated employee outside the protected class; an employee who did not engage in the same conduct is not similarly situated.

Holmes v. Trinity Health · filed 2013-09-04(a)

Although Simonson was a member of the senior management team, he was not a "similarly situated" employee, because he did not engage in the same conduct. Specifically, Simonson did not voice similar dissatisfactions with Kutch's behavior and management style.

Section 2000e-2 requires employees used as comparators in a disparate treatment claim to be similarly situated.

Sapp v. Donahoe · filed 2013-09-11

Because her disability was physical and Sapp’s limitations were psychological in nature, they were not similarly-situated and the purported disparate treatment between them cannot form the basis for a Title VII discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2 permits an inference of employment discrimination when an employee outside a protected class commits a sufficiently similar infraction but receives less severe discipline.

Perez v. Thorntons, Incorporated · filed 2013-09-30

At the end of the day, both of these infractions involved inventory control, and yet the employees were treated very differently by Thorn-tons’ higher management. We believe it should be left to a jury to decide whether they were similar enough to support an inference of discrimination.

In a Title VII failure-to-hire claim, candidates used to support an inference of discrimination must be alike in all respects relevant to the employer’s hiring decision.

Royster v. Laurel Highlands School District · filed 2014-01-14(a)(1)

The court concludes, however, that the three Caucasian, male candidates that Dr. Brain recommended to the school board are not similarly situated to Royster because each was a then-current employee of the School District who received financial assistance from the School District in obtaining his advanced degree or certification papers.

A race discrimination plaintiff relying on comparators must show that similarly situated employees outside her race received more favorable treatment.

Jest v. Archbold Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2014-04-01(a)(1)

Furthermore, Jest fails to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination because she cannot demonstrate that Archbold treated similarly situated white employees more favorably.

A national origin discrimination plaintiff using the indirect method must show that the employer treated a similarly situated employee outside the protected class more favorably.

Hnin v. TOA (USA) LLC · filed 2014-05-05(a)

Accordingly, Hnin has not presented a triable issue of fact concerning the similarly situated element of his prima facie case of national origin discrimination.

Section 2000e-2 requires an employee using the indirect method to identify a similarly situated employee outside the protected class who received more favorable treatment.

Huang v. Continental Casualty Company · filed 2014-06-13

To survive summary judgment, Huang needed to identify another employee, outside of his protected class, who refused a comparable work assignment but was not fired.

A plaintiff can establish the comparator element of a race discrimination claim by identifying employees of another race who engaged in nearly identical misconduct but received more favorable treatment.

Lavigne v. Cajun Deep Foundations, LLC · filed 2014-07-10(a)

It is well established that the plaintiffs burden of proof in disparate treatment cases is to identify similarly situated employees whose circumstances, including their misconduct, was “nearly identical” to the plaintiff. ... Based on the evidence in the record, the Court concludes that Lavigne has sufficiently identified three White male employees who struck an overpass or bridge with heavy equipment, but were not suspended.

A Title VII disparate treatment plaintiff relying on comparators must show that employees outside her protected class with sufficiently similar conduct were treated more favorably.

Brown v. Jacobs Engineering, Inc. · filed 2014-07-17(a)(1)

Here, Brown had not established a prima facie case of discrimination because, as the record reveals, none of the alleged comparators are similarly situated to Brown.

Section 2000e-2(a) allows a sex discrimination claim to proceed when evidence shows that an employee was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee of another sex.

Orton-Bell v. State of Indiana · filed 2014-07-21(a)

Because there is evidence that Orton-Bell was similarly situated to Ditmer, but treated less favorably, it was error to grant summary judgment on her discrimination claim.

A plaintiff relying on a comparator to establish a prima facie Title VII race discrimination claim must show that a similarly situated employee outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

McQueen v. Wells Fargo · filed 2014-07-29(a)(1)

Here, the district court correctly concluded that McQueen could not establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII against either Aerotek or Wells Fargo. McQueen did not submit any evidence that she was replaced by, or treated less favorably than, a similarly situated employee outside of her protected class.

A race or color discrimination claim based on different treatment of employees requires comparators who are similarly situated in relevant respects, including the nature and amount of their misconduct.

Word v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, Inc. · filed 2014-08-13(a)(1)

Title VII makes it unlawful for employers to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race [or] color.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). ... Thus, Plaintiff cannot show that her proffered comparators were similarly situated to her for the purpose of establishing a prima facie case of race or color discrimination.

A race discrimination plaintiff relying on disparate treatment must show that a similarly situated employee outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

Clara Bender v. Miami Shores Village · filed 2014-08-21(a)(1)

Nevertheless, regardless of Bender’s ability to demonstrate adverse employment actions as part of her prima facie case of race discrimination, the district court did not err in concluding she failed to establish a prima facie case because she did not show she was treated less favorably than a similarly situated MSV employee, outside of her protected class.

Male employees with different supervisors were not adequate comparators for a sex-discrimination claim where only the plaintiff’s supervisor made the challenged light-duty decision.

Galdamez v. DHL Air Express USA · filed 2014-08-25(a)(1)

These male employees, however, had different supervisors than Galdamez and, thus, are not adequate comparators under the specific facts of this case.

A professor claiming discriminatory denial of tenure must identify a more favorably treated comparator who was similarly situated in relevant respects, including comparable collegiality issues.

Butler v. Emory University · filed 2014-09-19(a)(1)

To show that another professor was similarly situated to him and treated more favorably, Butler must identify one who engaged in or was accused of similar misconduct—i.e., lacked collegiality—but was still awarded tenure. Butler has not made such a showing, so he has not made out a prima facie case.

More favorable treatment of another employee does not show pretext under § 2000e-2(a)(1) unless the employees are similarly situated.

Petrikonis v. Wilkes Barre Hospital Co LLC · filed 2014-09-12(a)(1)

Therefore, Trainee is not similarly situated to Petrikonis, and thus her more favorable treatment does not show pretext.

A discrimination claim requires facts showing that employees treated more favorably engaged in comparable conduct.

Bajestani v. Tennessee Valley Authority · filed 2014-11-13(a)

Because Plaintiffs conduct differs in highly relevant aspects from the conduct of those he argues are similarly situated to him, Plaintiff has failed to allege facts sufficient to establish the fourth element of the Title VII claim.

A plaintiff alleging discriminatory discharge based on disparate discipline must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment for comparable misconduct.

Robinson v. Volvo Group North America, LLC · filed 2014-11-04(a)(1)

Because she has not established that similarly situated employees were treated differently and more favorably, Ms. Robinson has not “eliminat[ed] the most common nondiscriminatory reasons for the disparate treatment.” ... Her circumstantial evidence is thus insufficient to allow the fact-finder to draw an inference of discrimination, and the defendant is entitled to summary judgment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a plaintiff alleging disparate discipline to show that a more favorably treated employee was similarly situated; different types and degrees of misconduct may warrant different discipline.

Reynolds v. Winn-Dixie Raleigh, Inc. · filed 2015-01-09(a)(1)

Reynolds and Todd are not similarly situated. The facts viewed in the light most favorable to Reynolds reveal that Reynolds and Todd engaged in “[d]ifferent types and degrees of misconduct,” which “may warrant different types and degrees of discipline.” ... Accordingly, Reynolds fails to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, and Winn-Dixie is entitled to summary judgment on Reynolds’s Title VII gender discrimination claim.

A plaintiff cannot use a coworker to show pretext for discrimination when their pay grades, job levels, and roles are materially different.

Gonda v. Donahoe · filed 2015-02-11(a)(1)

Ms. Gonda has not satisfied her burden of establishing Ms. Lara as a valid comparator in light of their different pay grades, job levels and the fact that Ms. Gonda was a senior organization classification and management analyst while Ms. Lara was not.

In a disparate-treatment discipline claim, employees accused of a different combination or number of offenses are not appropriate comparators.

Parten v. Alabama Department of Tourism · filed 2015-04-20(a)(1)

As an initial matter, none of these individuals was accused of a similar combination or number of offenses as Parten. This fact alone destroys their usefulness as comparators.

When discipline arises from an altercation, employees may be similarly situated for a race discrimination claim based on their roles and actions in that altercation, even if their job duties differ.

Wheat v. Fifth Third Bank · filed 2015-05-07(a)(1)

Rather, because Wheat’s termination was spurred by a verbal, and potentially physical, altercation, the relevant comparison between Wheat and Hatfield should involve only the two men’s roles and actions in the contretemps.

A plaintiff using a comparator to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination must provide some evidence that the comparator was similarly situated.

Rebouche v. Deere & Company · filed 2015-05-26(a)

While “[t]he burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous,” Torgerson v. City of Rochester, 643 F.3d 1031, 1047 (8th Cir. 2011) (en banc), the plaintiff must be able to produce some evidence of similarity between her and her comparator. Rebouche has failed to produce any such evidence and has therefore failed to show that Wilson, who had a different job title and pay grade, was similarly situated to her.

A race discrimination claim based on more favorable treatment of coworkers requires evidence that those coworkers were similarly situated.

Darral Reed v. Allied Waste Services, Inc. · filed 2015-06-26(a)(1)

But Reed did not introduce evidence from which a jury could infer that any coworker was similarly situated.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires a race discrimination plaintiff relying on disparate treatment to identify a similarly situated employee treated more favorably or present other evidence of discrimination to establish a prima facie case.

Williams v. City of Atlanta · filed 2015-06-30(a)(1)

Because Williams does not show that a similarly situated comparator was treated more favorably, and does not present other evidence of race discrimination, the district court properly held that Williams failed to make out a prima facie case of race discrimination.

In a sex discrimination claim under § 2000e-2(a)(1), employees offered as comparators must have engaged in similar conduct for different treatment to support an inference of discrimination.

Clemons v. Delta Air Lines Inc. · filed 2015-09-03(a)(1)

The district court did not err in determining that Clemons failed to present evidence that Delta treated similarly-situated employees outside of his class more favorably. Clemons’s actions related to the purse were not similar to other employees who were not terminated.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination plaintiff relying on comparable employees to show that they were similarly situated in relevant respects.

Willis v. Publix Super Markets, Inc. · filed 2015-09-25(a)

Willis failed to show that he was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside his protected class. The employees he offered for comparison were not similarly situated because, unlike Willis, they had not been found to have violated Publix’s dishonesty policy.

A race-based disparate-discipline claim requires evidence that similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s protected class received different treatment.

Reid v. Dalco Nonwovens, LLC · filed 2016-01-04(a)(1)

First, Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence in the record which demonstrates that a verbal reprimand and a “write up” are equivalent punishments — thus, his attempt to: demonstrate that three white employees were not “written up” for an incident for which he received a verbal reprimand falls flat.

A disparate treatment plaintiff relying on comparators must show that their conduct was nearly identical to the conduct that prompted the adverse employment decision.

Moghalu v. Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System · filed 2016-03-11(a)(1)

Thus, we conclude that the behavior of any ostensible comparators who lacked PhDs was “not even close to being ‘nearly identical’” to Moghalu’s.

A plaintiff may support an inference of race discrimination by showing that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class engaged in the same conduct and received more favorable treatment.

Peake v. Pennsylvania State Police · filed 2016-03-15(a)(1)

An unlawful inference of discrimination can be shown by identifying a similarly situated individual, outside of the protected class, who engaged in the same conduct and was treated more favorably.

A plaintiff claiming race discrimination under Section 2000e-2(a)(1) must present enough evidence of more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the protected group to establish a prima facie case at summary judgment.

Reeder v. County of Wayne · filed 2016-04-06(a)(1)

Plaintiff bears the burden of providing enough evidence to sustain a prima facie case of racial discrimination past summary judgment, and he did not carry this burden with regard to establishing he was treated differently than “similarly situated” employees outside the protected group. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs racial discrimination claims under Title VII and the ELCRA.

A sex-discrimination plaintiff relying on comparable employees must identify similarly situated employees outside her protected class who received more favorable treatment.

Kuttner v. Zaruba · filed 2016-04-14(a)(1)

The district judge concluded that Kuttner failed to satisfy the prima facie requirements because she did not identify any similarly situated male employee who received more favorable treatment. That conclusion was sound.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits sex discrimination in employment; evidence that similarly situated men received more favorable treatment can allow a discrimination claim to survive summary judgment.

Cox v. Coca-Cola · filed 2016-06-09(a)(1)

Ms. Cox has presented evidence that similarly situated males were treated more favorably by Mr. Johnson as the decision-maker on these terminations. ... Accordingly, summary judgment is DENIED with regard to her Title VII discrimination claim.

A plaintiff using a similarly situated comparator to prove discriminatory hiring must show that the comparator received more favorable treatment under nearly identical circumstances.

Noris Rogers v. Pearland Indep School District · filed 2016-06-28(a)(1)

In order for a Title VII plaintiff to establish his prima facie case through the use of a “similarly situated comparator,” he must establish that the comparator was treated more favorably than the plaintiff under “nearly identical circumstances.” ... Rogers has failed to establish a prima facie case, and the district court properly granted summary judgment.

A disparate treatment claim under section 2000e-2(a)(1) can fail for lack of evidence that similarly situated employees outside the plaintiff’s protected classes were treated differently.

Dev v. Donahoe · filed 2016-09-16(a)(1)

In each instance, there was insufficient evidence that Dev was treated differently than “similarly situated” employees who were not a member of Dev’s protected classes.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits employees disciplined by different supervisors to serve as comparators when a factfinder could find them similarly situated in all relevant respects.

Anderson v. Brennan · filed 2016-11-23(a)

Under such facts, a reasonable factfin-der could find that the other Postal Service employees were similarly situated to Anderson in all relevant respects even if those other employees were disciplined by different supervisors. That comparator evidence could reasonably support a conclusion that Anderson was disciplined differently due to her race. The Postal Service’s motion for summary judgment on Count I is DENIED.

Section 2000e-2 requires a gender discrimination plaintiff relying on comparisons with coworkers to show less favorable treatment than similarly situated employees outside her protected class.

Buckhanan v. Shinseki · filed 2016-11-30

Buckhanan cannot demonstrate that she was treated less favorably than other similarly situated officers outside of her class. We therefore agree with the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the VA on Buckhanan’s gender discrimination claim.

A plaintiff who relies on disparate discipline to prove race discrimination under Title VII must show that employees outside the protected class were similarly situated but received less severe discipline for comparably serious misconduct.

Hurst v. District of Columbia · filed 2017-03-07(a)(1)

The African-American DYRS employees Hurst presents as comparators, however, are not similarly situated for purposes of Title VII, and therefore her claim fails.

A plaintiff relying on a similarly situated employee to establish a prima facie discrimination claim must show that the employee engaged in similar conduct but received more favorable treatment.

Williams v. Gallup, Inc. · filed 2017-09-20(a)(1)

We agree with the district court that Mr. Williams failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination against Gallup because he did not present a similarly-situated comparator that Gallup did not discharge for the same conduct.

A Title VII sex discrimination plaintiff relying on circumstantial evidence must show that a similarly situated person outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

Storrs v. University of Cincinnati · filed 2017-09-26(a)

Here, UC argues Dr. McTague cannot demonstrate the fourth prong, ie., she cannot show that any similarly-situated male faculty members were treated more favorably. ... The Court agrees.

A plaintiff relying on comparator evidence to establish a prima facie sex discrimination claim must show that similarly situated employees of another sex received more favorable treatment.

Dagnesses v. Target Media Partners · filed 2017-09-29

Because Dagnesses cannot show that TMP treated any similarly-situated female employee more favorably than it treated him, he has failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination.

A Title VII race discrimination plaintiff can establish a prima facie case after a reduction in force when retained employees of another race are similarly situated; a difference in legal training alone does not defeat that comparison.

Butler-Burns v. City Colleges of Chicago · filed 2018-03-26(a)(1)

Accordingly, common sense dictates that the three LERS were similarly situated to Plaintiff in many critical respects, and therefore, Plaintiff has submitted sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of age and/or race discrimination under the traditional RIF analysis.

Under § 2000e-2(a)(1), a replacement with more than twice the plaintiff’s experience is not a similarly situated comparator for a prima facie discrimination claim.

Kaptoria Sanders v. Tikras Technology Solutions · filed 2018-03-28(a)(1)

Although Sanders was replaced in her position by a Hispanic male, that individual had more than twice the experience that Sanders had, and the two therefore were not similarly situated.

A disparate-treatment plaintiff relying on comparators must show they were similarly situated and provide sufficient evidence that the employer's stated reason was pretextual.

Johnson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 2018-07-11(a)(1)

As Plaintiff has failed to establish that she was similarly situated to her alleged comparators, she has not produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find pretext or discrimination on grounds of disparate treatment.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits sex discrimination in employment; employees offered as comparators must be similarly situated in material respects.

Barbera v. Pearson Education, Inc. · filed 2018-10-12(a)(1)

But although the proposed comparators need not be identical to Barbera, they must be situated similarly enough to suggest prohibited discrimination.

A race-discrimination plaintiff relying on a comparator must show that a similarly situated employee outside the protected class received more favorable treatment.

Howard v. Hyundai MOtor Manufacturing Alabama · filed 2018-10-26(a)(1)

Ultimately, we agree with the magistrate judge and the district court that Howard has not met his burden of demonstrating that a similarly situated employee outside his protected class was treated more favorably.

A Title VII race discrimination claim cannot rest on a proposed comparator who differs from the plaintiff in material respects.

Kelly v. Department of Human Services - Shapiro · filed 2018-11-15(a)(1)

But Krout is not comparable to Kelly in all material aspects.

A race discrimination plaintiff must show that an employee outside the protected group replaced him or that similarly situated employees outside the group were treated more favorably.

Thomas v. Tregre · filed 2019-01-25(a)

Thomas and Bordelon were thus not similarly situated when Tregre attempted to transfer Thomas.

In a Title VII disparate discipline claim, an employee may be a useful comparator even if charged under different rules, when the employees’ misconduct is similar in nature.

Julio de Lima Silva v. State of Wisconsin, Department · filed 2019-02-22(a)(1)

Whether plaintiff and Korte were charged with violating the same set of rules is not dispositive. Plaintiff may establish that his use of force was as serious as Korte’s by showing that their misconduct was of a similar nature.

A plaintiff relying on a male comparator to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination must show that the employees were similarly situated.

Crawford v. Karcher North America, Inc. · filed 2019-04-30

However, as discussed in the pretext section below, Crawford has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating that she and Taylor were similarly situated employees. As a result, Crawford has not established a prima facie case of gender discrimination.

For a prima facie race discrimination claim, employees whose misconduct differs in relevant ways are not similarly situated comparators.

Crawford v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. · filed 2019-05-28

Amaya is not, however, an appropriate comparator. Where employees “engaged in different conduct, and the differences in their conduct are relevant,” they are not similarly situated for employment discrimination purposes.

A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case of religious discrimination by showing that employees outside the protected class received less severe discipline for comparably serious misconduct.

Murphy v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2019-07-11

The Plaintiff fails to present any evidence that the prohibited conduct in which he engaged was comparable in seriousness to misconduct of other employees outside the protected class who received less severe discipline. Accordingly, he has not shown a prima facie case of discrimination.

A Title VII plaintiff must show that similarly situated employees were treated differently to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Davis v. Brennan · filed 2019-08-22(a)(1)

As noted, to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on each of her protected grounds under Title VII and the ADEA, Plaintiff must show that she was treated differently than similarly situated employees.

A sex discrimination claim based on more favorable treatment of other employees requires evidence that those employees were similarly situated in all material respects.

Ricasa v. State of Hawaii, Department of Human Services · filed 2019-10-11(a)(1)

Plaintiff has provided no evidence that the female employees he claims were treated more favorably were similarly situated to him.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires an employee using a comparator to make an initial case of racial discrimination to show that the other employee was similarly situated in all relevant respects and treated better.

Johnson v. Ohio Dep't of Public Safety · filed 2019-11-13(a)

To make an initial case for racial discrimination, Morris Johnson must show that he was “similarly situated” “in all of the relevant respects” to an employee of a different race who was treated better.

A race discrimination plaintiff relying on more favorable treatment of other employees must show that their circumstances were nearly identical.

Harris v. Drax Biomass Inc · filed 2019-11-26(a)(1)

The Court finds that Harris has failed to present evidence that the alleged comparators held the same job that he held, had the same responsibilities, shared the same supervisor or had their employment status determined by the same person. Thus, there is no evidence of a “nearly identical” situation to that of Harris.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a race discrimination plaintiff relying on a coworker comparison to show that the coworker was similarly situated; requests handled by different decisionmakers do not satisfy that requirement.

McCoy v. Department of Housing and Urban Development · filed 2019-12-04(a)

Though the Court sees no difference between how defendant accommodated Mr. McCoy’s requests for an ergonomic chair and Mr. Coop’s requests for an ergonomic chair, the Court also notes that Mr. McCoy and Mr. Coop are not similarly situated individuals as it relates to the ergonomic chairs because Ms. Jackson did not approve the purchase of Mr. Coop’s chair (Dkt. No. 26, at 2).

For a discrimination claim under § 2000e-2, a proposed comparator must be similarly situated in all material respects, including employment history and applicable policies.

Earle v. Birmingham Board of Education, The · filed 2020-01-29

Because Evans and Smith have different employment histories and were subject to different work policies, they are not similarly situated in all material respects. Without a proper comparator, Evans cannot establish a viable gender discrimination claim.

In a Title VII race discrimination claim, whether a more favorably treated employee is a suitable comparator can present a genuine issue of fact at summary judgment.

Robinson v. Georgia-Pacific Corrugated LLC · filed 2020-01-29(a)(1)

For purposes of summary judgment, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Robinson and Engle are appropriate comparators.

A Title VII plaintiff cannot establish an inference of sex discrimination by comparing her discipline with that of a temporary worker subject to different disciplinary rules.

DUDHI v. TEMPLE HEALTH OAKS LUNG CENTER · filed 2020-03-02(a)

The evidence shows that Ms. Dudhi’s status as a permanent employee and Ms. Hosten’s status as a temporary worker demonstrate a meaningful difference between their employment situations. No evidence supports a fact-finding that Mses. Dudhi and Hosten are similarly situated. Accordingly, Ms. Dudhi cannot rely on her comparator evidence to support her prima facie case.

A disparate treatment claimant relying on comparator evidence must show that someone similarly situated in all material respects received more favorable treatment.

Jackson v. Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2020-03-03(a)(1)

Because Jackson has failed to show any person was similarly situated to him, Jackson has failed to establish a prima facie case of race or gender discrimination.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) requires an employee claiming discriminatory denial of benefits to show different treatment from a similarly situated employee outside the protected class.

Lakhani v. Inkster · filed 2020-03-30(a)(1)

Thus, Plaintiff has not established the fourth prong of his prima facie case—that he was treated differently than a similarly situated employee from outside his protected class.

Section 2000e-2(a) permits a race discrimination plaintiff to use a supervisor as a comparator when both were bound by the same workplace conduct rule.

NORFOLK v. THE GEO GROUP, INC. · filed 2020-04-15(a)

A jury could find that Major Parrish and Mr. Norfolk were similarly situated because they were both equally bound to follow the same code of conduct, the relevant point of comparison here.

A race-discrimination plaintiff can establish a prima facie case when a factual dispute remains over whether a more favorably treated employee engaged in comparably serious misconduct.

Craddock v. Fedex Corporate Services, Inc. · filed 2020-05-19(a)(1)

Without the text of the Acceptable Conduct Policy, the Court cannot properly weigh whether Fischer engaged in an act of comparable seriousness and whether she is therefore similarly situated with Plaintiff as to the violation of the Policy. ... The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has met her easy burden of establishing a prima facie case of race discrimination.

A plaintiff relying on comparator evidence to prove race discrimination must show that similarly situated employees outside her protected class were treated more favorably.

ELLIS v. BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP · filed 2020-05-20(a)

Here, in arguing that summary judgment is not proper, Ellis relies solely on comparative evidence. However, Ellis’s purported comparators are not similarly situated.

Section 2000e-2(a) requires a discrimination plaintiff to show, as part of a prima facie case, that similarly situated employees outside her protected class received more favorable treatment.

West v. City of Houston, Texas · filed 2020-06-09(a)

Title VII protects employees against race and sex discrimination in the workplace. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). To demonstrate a prima facie case of employment discrimination, West must show that she (1) belongs to “a protected class”; (2) “was qualified for the position”; (3) experienced “an adverse employment action”; and (4) was “similarly situated” to other employees who were not members of her protected class and who “were treated more favorably.” Bryan v. McKinsey & Co., Inc., 375 F.3d 358, 360 (5th Cir. 2004). ... Accordingly, West failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the fourth element of her discrimination claim.

Section 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits race discrimination; a plaintiff relying on comparator evidence must show that a similarly situated employee received more favorable treatment.

Smith v. Acting Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security · filed 2020-07-01(a)(1)

Smith’s failure to produce evidence showing that a single similarly situated comparator was treated more favorably precludes the establishment of a prima facie case.

A plaintiff relying on comparator evidence to establish discrimination under § 2000e-2(a)(1) must show that similarly situated employees outside the protected class were treated more favorably.

AL HAFNAWI v. The Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County, Florida · filed 2020-07-08(a)(1)

By failing to present evidence of a viable comparator, Dr. Al-Hafnawi cannot make out the fourth prong of a prima facie case of race, national origin, or religious discrimination.

A sex discrimination claim based on comparisons with other employees requires evidence that the employees were similarly situated and treated differently.

Barski v. Cyberdata Technologies, Inc. · filed 2020-08-04(a)(1)

Thus, no reasonable trier of fact could determine on this record that any of the three are suitable comparators.

When a Title VII discrimination claim relies on comparisons with employees outside the protected class, the complaint must plausibly allege that those employees were similarly situated.

Martinez v. Constellis, LLC · filed 2020-08-10(a)(1)

Although Martinez need not point to a specific comparator to establish his Title VII discrimination claim, because he relies on these allegations alone to establish his discrimination claim, he must plausibly show that these non-Spanish employees were “indeed similarly situated.”