Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): F.3d at 1562. With regard to the reduction in work hours, Belanger had his hours reduced even more than Beal; and thus, even assuming that Beal is correct in stating that she and Belanger were functionally equal in terms of job duties, Belanger was not treated more favorably than Neal. Belanger also is not a valid comparator for Beal’s disparate-discharge claim because he was terminated for unsatisfactory performance, while Beal was terminated for recording customer calls in violation of company policy. Because Beal failed to show the existence of a valid comparator in either her race discrimination or discriminatory discharge claims and does not present other evidence of discrimination, she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Burke-Fowler, 447 F.3d at 1323 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the district court properly 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job (B) holding that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discrimination because she was unable to present evidence that she was qualified for the position (C) holding that a plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to show valid comparators and presented no other circumstantial evidence of discrimination (D) holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 (E) holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case
Output (English): holding that more favorable treatment of similarly situated employees outside the race classification is required to make a prima facie race discrimination case