to assert a legitimate, nondiscriminatory justification for the plaintiffs non-selection. See generally id. The plaintiff responds that she was not required to demonstrate that she was treated differently from a similarly situated male applicant to establish her prima facie case and that, given the absence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory justification from the defendant, the court properly granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on her non-selection claims. Pl.’s Opp’n at 8. This Circuit has squarely and repeatedly rejected the notion that a plaintiff must show that she was treated differently from a similarly situated individual outside her protected class to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Ginger v. Dist. of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340, 1344 (D.C.Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord
holding that a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim holding that to prove discrimination  a plaintiff need not demonstrate that a similarly situated person outside his protected class was treated disparately quoting czekalski v peters 475 f3d 360 36566 dccir2007 holding that potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions