Commonwealth v. Alvarez, J.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that when the “quantum of misbehavior is radically different” “one would naturally expect a radically different disciplinary outcome” (citation omitted)
• “Although other factors may also be relevant depending on the facts of each case . . . the Mitchell factors are generally relevant.”
• “So this case comes down to one question. Was [the plaintiff] similarly situated to [the comparator employee] in all relevant respects?”
• “The Department disciplined the [plaintiff and the other allegedly similarly situated employee] differently because their situations were different. Thus, [the plaintiff] has failed to present a case for discrimination.”
• “Drawn at too high a level of generality, the ‘comparable seriousness’ test becomes meaningless.”
• plaintiff was not similarly situated to a coworker who reported to a different supervisor

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).