Wawrzenski

Discussion and after the citation: (Riggs v. AirTran Airways, Inc. (10th Cir. 2007) 497 F.3d 1108, 1117; see Graham v. Long Island R.R., supra, 230 F.3d at pp. 42-43 [a rational jury could find the plaintiff and another employee were similarly situated where they engaged in different misconduct but were subject to the

* Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1100 and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of parts F and G of the Discussion. same conditions for dismissal].), add as footnote 13 the following footnote, which will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes:

13.United argues in a petition for rehearing that our consideration of comparators with different supervisors is “deductively unsound” because the jury could not infer Mark had a discriminatory motive for firing Wawrzenski without evidence he knew how other supervisors disciplined similarly situated employees. But as the court in Earl v. Nielsen Media Research, Inc., supra, 658 F.3d 1108 recognized, the “‘same supervisor’ requirement” does not apply where, as here, the plaintiff and the comparators have “to follow the same policies and procedures” and the employer…