“Fuqua and Vontice were both assistant managers at the same Wal-Mart store. Vontice had an arguably worse history of work violations. Both were found to have improperly taken cash advances and both timely paid them back. . . .[E]ach was given thirty days to repay the money and obtain an hourly position at another store.
Two employees with materially the same duties, a common decisionmaker, and similar histories of company violations are acceptable comparators.
“[Plaintiff and coworker] has ‘the same responsibilities,’ and ‘had their employment status determined by the same person.’” Turner, 675 F.3d at 896. “We are also satisfied that [they] had ‘essentially comparable violation histories.’” Id. at 897. “These employment histories are sufficiently similar to require comparison. Id.
Separate incidents caused by two employees, which violate mostly the same rules with similar degrees of severity and which are punished by the same decisionmaker, are legitimately compared to test disparate treatment.
“Two points convince us that Schmitt’s violations arising from the sideswipe incident are comparable to Turner’s putative violations in the derailment incident. First, Schmitt was found to have violated most of the same workplace rules that Turner was found to have violated.” Turner v. Kan. City S. Ry. Co., 675 F.3d 887, 896 (5th…
Refusing to offer an employee a raise due to a pay freeze, and then offering a raise to a similarly situated employee of the opposite sex during the alleged freeze evidences disparate treatment based on sex.
“Defendant contends that . . . due to a freeze starting in late 2008 or early 2009 no merit based pay raises were given to any Sales Managers.” Wojciechowski, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 858. “However, according to Defendant’s own statement of position to the EEOC, [employee], who was promoted to Sales Manager .…
Assigning work only to employees outside the plaintiff’s class raises a genuine question of fact as to disparate treatment.
“She claims that . . . [her employer] told her there was no work available for her. However, [plaintiff] alleges other male employees were assigned work during that time period. . . . Documentation in the record shows a genuine factual dispute about whether [plaintiff] was treated differently than male employees.” Collinson v. Tarver Land…
Refusing to investigate complaints of harassment because the alleged harasser belongs to a protected class evidences disparate treatment benefitting the harasser.
“[Plaintiff] presented sufficient evidence that [employer]’s alleged refusal to discuss the conduct and/or discipline [coworker] because he ‘is in a protected class’ creates a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether this refusal could reasonably be viewed as disparate treatment.” Walsh, 2012 WL 3929870 at *5.
Ignoring an employee’s complaints about treatment of women, especially when the employee’s supervisor agrees with her evaluation, constitutes evidence of discrimination.
“[Plaintiff] offers evidence of differential treatment based on sex . . . . [S]he was ignored after speaking out about gender issues by CEO Galas and . . . her immediate supervisor . . . agreed with her that there was an unfair, discriminatory culture . . . .” Brock-Chapman, 2013 WL 169177 at
Declining to terminate an employee engaging in the same behavior that led to the plaintiff’s termination raises a triable issue of fact as to disparate treatment.
“[Plaintiff] claims that [coworker] was treated more favorable than plaintiff because [employer] did not terminate [coworker]’s employment for engaging in the same behavior that led to [Plaintiff]’s dismissal.” Walsh v. Stratos Offshore Servs. Co., CIV. A. H-11-2603, 2012 WL 3929870, at *3 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2012). Court denied summary judgment on the discrimination…
Employees who all report to the same supervisor and who have the same duties are similarly situated for purposes of comparing treatment.
All coworkers to whom Plaintiff compared herself “reported to the same manager and had the same job duties.” Edwards, 2013 WL 474770 at *3. “[T]here is at least a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether similarly situated employees were treated differently.” Id.
A triable issue exists as to whether an employee is treated less favorably than other employees when she is placed on a PIP or terminated but non-protected employees recieving similar critiques are not.
“[O]ther employees . . . received similar performance critiques to hers but none was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan or had their employment terminated.” Edwards, 2013 WL 474770 at *3. “[T]here is at least a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether similarly situated employees were treated differently.” Id.