Christopher Graham v. Long Island Rail Road

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a jury could find that one employee’s violation for excessive absenteeism was comparable to another employee’s violation for alcohol use in light of the relevant workplace standards
• holding that standard for discriminatory discipline case is (1) whether the employees “were subject to the same workplace standards” and (2) whether the employees’ conduct “was of comparable seriousness”
• holding that, while plaintiff need not show “identical” circumstances, “a reasonably close resemblance of the facts and circumstances of plaintiffs and comparator’s cases” is necessary to support an inference of discrimination
• concluding that plaintiff plausibly alleged he and comparator employees were similarly situated even though he did not plead facts about the comparator employees’ job function, experience, qualifications, and rate of pay
• holding that plaintiff and comparator must be “subject to the same workplace standards” and “the conduct for which the employer imposed discipline” must be “of comparable seriousness”
• explaining that the plaintiff must show that the other employees were similarly situated in all material respects

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).