Similarly situated when the individual is the only person in their job category?

Kbake

How do the courts define similiarly situated when the individual is the only person in their job category?? Help!!! 7th circuit and Il answers preferred but at this point any answer would help!!

Hatchetman

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 02-07-03 AT 11:37PM (CST)[/font][p]"Similarly situated" is a vague term and probably will depend on the exact circumstances and the ability of either party to show how other employees would be or would not be considered as "similarly situated". It doesn't necessarily mean the exact same position. It could mean other things in the employment relationship to show how an employer treats emplyees and then to see if there are any significant differences when it comes to allegations of discrimination or in an employer's "past practice."

For example, you may be the only employee holding a particular job. But there may be other employees in other jobs who are "similarly situated" to you in seniority or years with the employer, for example. Or you may be seeking FMLA leave and some of them may be seeking FMLA leave. Let's say are black and the other employees with your seniority are all white, and the employer gave them particular benefits but denied you and other employees (including whites, blacks, Hispancis, men, women) the same benefits and these other employees had less seniority with the company than you did, you could possibly establish a discrimination claim. The company could point out that white emplyees where also denied the benefits but you would point out that they aren't similarly situated to you. The similarly-situated employees, who happened to be white, received the benefits you didn't. The fact that white emplyees were denied the benefits is irrelevant to your case because when it came to comparing similar employees on seniority, you weren't given the same benefit. There may be several variations of "similary situated" that could be argued and of course part of the responsibility a court would have would be to decide which comparisons and links are valid.

The comaphny maybe could argue your single position did not warrant you receiving the benefit because you were the only employee in that classification. It would be up to the employer to show how that singular emplyee distinction warrants, as a business necessity you being denied the benefits (The employer would probably try to also prove that such a decision would have been made if a white employee was in that same position). And that's where the court would have to make a decision on whether the emplyer did in fact discriminate on the basis of race or whether it did not and the argument it gave was justifiable for what it did.

That's an example of how "similary situated" could rise in a one position classification.

Mentel

The courts could look at those that have the same reporting relationships, similar salary ranges, etc. In our firm, I am the only person in HR. I would be similarly situated with the Marketing Manager and the Office Services Manager based on who we report to (the President) and how we are paid (same salary range). You don't need to have the same job to be similarly situated.