Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Linda Giles, and Gina Arias. (Doc. No. 12, Ex. A, ¶ 13.) Plaintiff acknowledges that he received individualized training from these individuals, but claims it only lasted one to one- and-a-half weeks. (PI. Dep., Doc. No. 12, Ex. B, 142^43.) Throughout this later training period, Plaintiff admitted he remained disinterested in the DCD training because of his purported imminent transfer to Piping, and his primary concern was distribution—delivering mail. (PL Dep., Doc. No. 12, Ex. B, 123; Ex A., ¶9.) In deciding motions for summary judgment, a Court may not make credibility determinations. Plaintiff has admitted that he subsequently received individualized training, although its length is disputed. A jury, however, could still conclude that Plaintiffs initial lac 8 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff identifies three employees who were 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim (B) holding that a similarly situated employee is one who is comparable to plaintiff in all material respects (C) holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated (D) holding that where one employee involved in fight was more harshly disciplined than the other plaintiff was not similarly situated because he had been more aggressive than the other employee (E) holding that it was plain error for trial court to allow more than one conviction of grossly negligent operation of a vehicle where more than one person was injured
Output (English): holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated