Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): return to work. Without establishing this prima facie case, Rincones’s claim fails as a matter of law. “Employees are similarly situated if their circumstances are comparable in all material respects, including similar standards, supervisors, and conduct.” Ysleta Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Monarrez, 177 S.W.3d 915, 917 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam). “The situations and conduct of the employees in question must be ‘nearly identical.’ ” Reyes, 272 S.W.3d at 594 (citation omitted); see also Edwards v. Grand Casinos of Miss., Inc., 145 Fed.Appx. 946, 948 n.2 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (noting that as to the similarly situated requirement, circumstances surrounding the compared employees must be “nearly identical”); Smith v. Wal-Mart Stores (No. 471), 891 F.2d 1177, 1180 (5th Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). “Employees with different responsibilities, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct (B) holding that the employer had not demonstrated the employee was discharged for gross misconduct because the conduct was an isolated incident and the employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious  or indeed any consequences as a result of the employees conduct (C) holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination (D) holding that in order for plaintiff to prove that she was similarly situated to three other employees she had to demonstrate that all of the relevant aspects of her employment situation were nearly identical to those of the other employees (E) holding plaintiffs burden was to show that the misconduct for which she was discharged was nearly identical to that engaged in by a male employee whom her employer retained internal quotation omitted
Output (English): holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct