show that she was terminated because of the rumors, the evidence would not show that Ayala was treated more favorably than plaintiff. According to plaintiff, Ayala voluntarily resigned because his supervisor, Lohse, acted unprofessionally in response to the rumors of the alleged affair. The distinction between plaintiffs alleged situation (that she was terminated because of rumors of an affair after having decided not to resign or accept severance pay) and Ayala’s alleged situation (that he resigned, accepting severance pay, because he found his employment situation intolerable because of rumors of an affair) is insignificant and would not support a finding that plaintiff was treated less favorably than Ayala. Compare Shore v. Federal Express Corp., 589 F.Supp. 662, 667 (W.D.Tenn.1984) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 777-F.2d 1155 (6th Cir.1985).
holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination holding that a federal personnel policy was a legitimate factor other than sex because a male employee would have experienced the same pay disparity as the female complainants if his work background had been the same as theirs holding eeoc could maintain action alleging discrimination against male employees in the administration of the retirement system although original charge was filed by female alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination holding that defendants action of firing a female employee involved in an affair but not disciplining the male reflected a double standard which evidenced sex discrimination