Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): retaliation for his sexual harassment complaints. In addition, the Plaintiff points out that there are no written memoranda or letters in his file documenting any issues with his attendance, either in the summer of 2008 or during any other time period. Furthermore, the Plaintiff argues that Robert Cacciola, another warehouse employee, was never monitored by Ellis or disciplined by Geier, although he had similar attendance issues. Courts have consistently held that one way to establish a claim of retaliation is to show that the complaining employee is treated differently than other employees who did not engage in a protected activity. See Knight v. City of New York, 303 F.Supp.2d 485, 498-99 (S.D.N.Y.2004); see also DeCintio v. Westchester Cty. Med. Ctr., 821 F.2d 111, 115 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the Court finds that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that absent a rational reason for disparate treatment similarlysituated taxpayers should be treated in a similar fashion (B) holding that discrimination can be established through other evidence such as disparate treatment of fellow employees who engaged in similar conduct (C) holding that the individuals with whom a plaintiff seeks to be compared must have engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances as would distinguish their conduct or the employers treatment of them for it (D) holding that title vii does not provide for a damages claim against supervisors or fellow employees (E) holding that a causal connection may be established indirectly with circumstantial evidence for example by showing that the protected activity was followed by discriminatory treatment or through evidence of disparate treatment of employees who engaged in similar conduct or directly through evidence of retaliatory animus
Output (English): holding that title vii does not provide for a damages claim against supervisors or fellow employees