hired by Amtrak in May 1999. (See PL’s Opp’n at 17; PL’s Am. Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14.) Plaintiff contends that Amtrak never posted the newly created position, instead “simply movfing] Mr. Bello into it without competition” (PL’s Opp’n at 17), and continued to employ Bello at the time Amtrak terminated her employment. (See PL’s Opp’n at 13, 17.) In essence, plaintiff asserts that defendants’ outsourcing explanation is pretext because, if the real reason for her termination was the restructuring of the Workforce Development unit, Amtrak would have also eliminated Bello’s HR Consultant position. To prevail on this claim, plaintiff would need to demonstrate that she was similarly situated to Bello in all relevant aspects of employment. See Holbrook v. Reno, 196 F.3d 255, 261 (D.C.Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>) (citations and internal quotations omitted);
holding that plaintiff failed to show she was similarly situated to her comparators without evidence that they shared the similar attributes experience education and qualifications relevant to the position holding that caucasian employees who engaged in the same act as the plaintiff but it did not result in injury to others were not similarly situated holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself holding that in order for plaintiff to prove that she was similarly situated to three other employees she had to demonstrate that all of the relevant aspects of her employment situation were nearly identical to those of the other employees holding that employees of differing seniority levels were not similarly situated