and declarations. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1)(A). As the County does not argue this point on appeal, we assume Doucette has cited sufficient evidence for us to consider these two comparators. 8 . The parties designated certain portions of the record as confidential in accordance with the district court’s protective order. To continue to protect the privacy of County employees not directly involved in this case, we have omitted the names of Doucette's proffered comparators and have only provided the factual background necessary for our analysis. 9 . Although we have not decided the question, several other circuits have recognized "sex-plus” claims brought by plaintiffs with two protected characteristics. See, e.g., Shazor v. Prof l Transit Mgmt., Ltd., 744 F.3d 948, 958 (6th Cir.2014) (<HOLDING>); Gorzynski v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 596 F.3d
holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that title vii claim was subject to compulsory arbitration recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap recognizing title vii claim by subclass of african american women holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii