Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Cir.2005). The undisputed evidence in this case reveals that neither Arbaney, Lakey, nor Couch was similarly situated to Ramon. Ramon was younger and not as close to being eligible for retirement as were Arbaney and Lakey, and there is no evidence that Continental uncovered any wrongdoing by Couch. These differences between Ramon’s situation and that of her comparators justified the differential treatment, and Ramon cannot demonstrate that she was “similarly situated” to them. See Wyvill v. United Cos. Life Ins.. Co., 212 F.3d 296, 305 (5th Cir.2000) (affirming summary judgment where “the striking differences between the two men’s situations more than account for the different treatment they received”); see also Nelson v. Gen. Elec. Co., 2 Fed. Appx. 425 (6th Cir.2001) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>); Thomas v. Hilts, No. 224690, 2002 WL 234757, 
 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 potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions (E) holding that younger employee not similarly situated to older employee who committed similar infraction and was allowed to remain on job for a few extra months and obtain retirement eligibility
Output (English): holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim