of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.’ ” Coming Glass Works v. Brennan, 417 U.S. 188, 195, 94 S.Ct. 2223, 2228, 41 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1)). “Equal work” does not require that the jobs be identical, but only that there exist “substantial equality of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions.” Odomes v. Nucare, Inc., 653 F.2d 246, 250 (6th Cir.1981). Whether the work of two employees is substantially equal “must be resolved by an overall comparison of the work, not its individual segments.” Id. The plaintiff may meet her prima facie burden by demonstrating a wage differential between herself and her predecessor. See Gandy v. Sullivan County, Tenn., 24 F.3d 861 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). An overall comparison of the work performed
holding that removal of job responsibility did not constitute an adverse employment action because there was no change in the plaintiffs job position grade pay or benefits holding that evidence that male employees consistently called plaintiff whore floor whore curb whole curb side cunt and bitch a male employee pushed plaintiff against a wall and placed his knee between her legs and other men made comments to plaintiff that a woman had no place in a car dealership was sufficient to establish sexual harassment holding that a job transfer was not an adverse employment action because the plaintiff enjoyed the same  rate of pay and benefits and her duties were not materially modified holding that an individual is not qualified for a job if there is a genuine substantial risk that he could be injured or could injure others and the employer cannot modify the job to eliminate that risk holding that there was substantial similarity between plaintiff and her male predecessors job