of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and Texas Department of Transportation were properly being followed because of his experience with Department of Transportation rules and regulations. Thus, Defendant explains, the primary duties of Mateos and Smith were materially different than the duties of Cedillo and Monte-mayor. Defendant’s second assertion fails to demonstrate that Plaintiffs are not “similarly situated.” Plaintiffs have shown two overarching themes that each of their tasks required: performing safety observations and investigating accidents. Plaintiffs also demonstrated that they each allegedly worked more than forty hours per week without additional compensation. See Villarreal v. St. Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 751 F.Supp.2d 902, 918 (S.D.Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>). It is understandable that, among the more
holding members of two distinct pension plans were not similarly situated for equal protection analysis holding equal protection under the federal constitution applies to similarly situated persons holding that defendants are not similarly situated for sentencing purposes where one defendant accepts responsibility but the other does not 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 holding that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated