elements, the Court dismisses Jucha’s equal protection claim. First, Jucha has not plausibly alleged that he is similarly situated to his comparator, the tattoo parlor that has been allowed to operaté as a result of its grandfathered status. “In order to be considered ‘similarly situated,’ comparators must be ‘prima facie identical in all relevant respects,’ or ‘directly comparable to [plaintiff] in all material respects.’” Racine Charter One, Inc. v. Racine Unified Sch. Dist., 424 F.3d 677, 680 (7th Cir:2005) (alteration in original) (citations omitted). By pointing out that the comparator operates under a grandfather provision, the Complaint makes clear that the comparator is not similarly situated to 4 Anchors. See Purze v. Vill. of Winthrop Harbor, 286 F.3d 452, 455 (7th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). While Jucha bears no burden of proof at the
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 that employee who violated a different policy of the store than plaintiff was not similarly situated holding in a challenge to a zoning deci sion that the plaintiff was not similarly situated to others who received different treatment for different reasons holding that plaintiff was not similarly situated to another employee who also engaged in protected activity for purposes of plaintiffs retaliation claim 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