(summary order) (citation omitted); Moccio v. Cornell Univ., 889 F.Supp.2d 539, 570 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("Claims for violations of the Equal Pay Act and the New York State Equal Pay Act may be evaluated under the same standard." (quoting Rose v. Goldman, Sachs, & Co., Inc., 163 F.Supp.2d 238, 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)); Gibson v. Jacob K. Javits Convention Ctr., No. 95 Civ. 9728(LAP); 1998 WL 132796, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 1998) (evaluating claims under the federal and state statutes "simultaneously’1 and "under the Equal Pay Act rubric” because pleading standards are "identical”)). 28 . Garcia’s prima facie EPA claim with respect to Fernandes and Feola is further called into question in light of the fact that she earned more than each of them in 2009. See also Moccio, 889 F.Supp.2d at 571 (<HOLDING>). 29 . It is undisputed that each of these
holding that because there was no evidence before the court of any similarly situated employees who were promoted to a higher salary grade when plaintiff was denied a promotion plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote holding that plaintiffs prima facie case fails for the alternative reason that just as many male comparators earned a lower salary as plaintiff as earned a higher one holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review holding that a plaintiff had not established a prima facie case of race discrimination because she failed to show valid comparators and presented no other circumstantial evidence of discrimination