context: Case law shows that it is not necessarily the immediate supervisor that is important for determining valid comparators, but rather the decision maker.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 408 F.Supp.2d 193, 206
citation_a.parenthetical: "[T]he employee must generally show the same decisionmaker made the disparate employment decisions."
citation_a.sentence: See Holtz v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp., 408 F.Supp.2d 193, 206 (M.D.N.C.2006) (“[T]he employee must generally show the same decisionmaker made the disparate employment decisions.”) (emphasis added), aff’d, 242 Fed.Appx. 75 (4th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (unpublished); see also Herron v. Virginia Commonwealth Univ., 366 F.Supp.2d 355, 368 n. 16 (E.D.Va.2004) (observing that the fact that an agent of the defendant “who took different action under allegedly similar circumstances involving other students who were outside the protected class was a different individual than the decisionmaker in Plaintiffs case, is a fatal distinction”) (emphasis added); see also Forrest, 245 Fed.Appx. 255 (“If different decision-makers are involved, employees are generally not similarly situated.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: observing that the fact that an agent of the defendant "who took different action under allegedly similar circumstances involving other students who were outside the protected class was a different individual than the decisionmaker in Plaintiffs case, is a fatal distinction"
citation_b.sentence: See Holtz v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp., 408 F.Supp.2d 193, 206 (M.D.N.C.2006) (“[T]he employee must generally show the same decisionmaker made the disparate employment decisions.”) (emphasis added), aff’d, 242 Fed.Appx. 75 (4th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (unpublished); see also Herron v. Virginia Commonwealth Univ., 366 F.Supp.2d 355, 368 n. 16 (E.D.Va.2004) (observing that the fact that an agent of the defendant “who took different action under allegedly similar circumstances involving other students who were outside the protected class was a different individual than the decisionmaker in Plaintiffs case, is a fatal distinction”) (emphasis added); see also Forrest, 245 Fed.Appx. 255 (“If different decision-makers are involved, employees are generally not similarly situated.”).