Opinion ID: 5127296
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Similarly Situated Comparator

Text: To show he was intentionally treated less favorably than others similarly situated, Reinebold must introduce evidence of similarly situated comparators. See Srail v. Village of Lisle, 588 F.3d 940, 945 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing RJB Props., Inc. v. Bd. of Educ., 468 F.3d 1005, 1010 (7th Cir. 2006)). “To be similarly situated, ‘comparators must be “prima facie identical in all relevant respects.”’” Id. (quoting Racine Charter One, Inc. v. Racine Uniﬁed Sch. Dist., 424 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir. 2005)). Reinebold identiﬁes Buysse as his comparator. He argues that although he and Buysse underwent the same application process for head baseball coach, they were not judged by the same standard. During the hiring process, Reinebold and Buysse were treated equally. Both men applied for the same job. Both men were considered qualiﬁed for the job by the hiring committee. Out of ninety-four candidates, both men were granted phone interviews, along with nine other candidates. Reinebold’s assertion that Buysse is his comparator, however, breaks down at the phone-interview stage. Reinebold 6 No. 21-1092 argues that because he was “objectively more qualiﬁed for the job than Buysse,” Appellant’s Br. at 12, Bruce and Norris must have discriminated against him. But his argument is unavailing because he and Buysse were not similarly situated at the phone-interview stage. The hiring committee distinguished Reinebold and Buysse based on their respective performances during their interviews. The evidence in the record shows that Reinebold performed poorly during his phone interview. Buysse performed well. Despite Reinebold’s contention that he is the better baseball coach, he failed to impress the committee during his phone interview. Buysse was therefore not similarly situated to Reinebold. Cf. Formella v. Brennan, 817 F.3d 503, 513 (7th Cir. 2016) (stating that candidates are “not suﬃciently similarly situated” when one candidate is more “well-prepared” in an interview). This alone defeats Reinebold’s claims and warrants us to aﬃrm the district court’s judgment. See Carson v. Lake County, 865 F.3d 526, 536–37 (7th Cir. 2017) (stating that plaintiﬀ’s equal protection claim fails because no suitable comparator was identiﬁed); see also Pulera v. Sarzant, 966 F.3d 540, 549 (7th Cir. 2020) (“If the plaintiﬀ fails to show at least a triable issue on each element, summary judgment is properly entered for the defendants.” (citing Burton v. Kohn Law Firm, S.C., 934 F.3d 572, 579 (7th Cir. 2019))).