Opinion ID: 216354
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Disparate Treatment

Text: Finally, McDonald-Cuba asserts that evidence of disparate treatment of female supervisors at SFPS meets her burden of showing pretext. She complains that Liming and Aduddell received higher-than-six-percent salary increases in 2007, and were not required to undergo written performance evaluations to receive these increases. This argument ignores Maki's testimony that the increases were provided because Liming and Aduddell had not received increases in previous years and their pay was lagging. McDonald-Cuba cannot contest the fact that in 2007 she was being paid more than Liming or Aduddell. See Aplt.App. at 129. Once again, she fails to show that she was similarly situated to either Liming or Aduddell. She also complains of a favorable action on SFPS's part: her promotion to directorship at SFPS. She contends this was offered only as a sort of fig leaf to hide discrimination against females at SFPS, and was only provided after she complained of discrimination because she was not a director. She objects to the fact that Maki gave her the promotion to make her feel better and to avoid the appearance that SFPS discriminates against women. Id. at 159-60. McDonald-Cuba's argument appears to be that SFPS's actions were condescending and hence redolent of discriminatory animus because they failed to take into account her entitlement to the position as a director, based on merit alone. The district court characterized this argument as absurd. Id. at 32. We need not go that far. We will simply note that we fail to see how a promotion based on a complaint of discrimination, even if provided grudgingly, meets McDonald-Cuba's burden to establish that SFPS's asserted reasons for firing her were pretextual.