in Conseco, deputies stationed at Riverview Hospital, and other privately-contracted deputies, carry guns but do not carry TASERS. [Dkt. 64-2 at 8.] Although these special deputies have limited law enforcement authority they are not employees of HCSD, nor does Mr. Robert present any evidence that they have the same qualifications or duties. [Dkt. 53-6 at ¶¶ 53-56.] Mr. Roberts also points out that the requirement to carry TASERS has not been adopted by all police departments. [Dkt. 60-10.] Although Mr. Robert’s intention is to compare the HCSD process servers to other special deputies and to officers in other police departments, he has not provided the Court with the “necessary comparative evidence” to make that leap. Dandy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 388 F.3d 263 (7th Cir. 2004) (<HOLDING>). Without the necessary comparative evidence
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 the plaintiff failed to make a prima facie case that the defendants failure to promote him was discriminatory where the plaintiff failed to that show he was qualified for the relevant position 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 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 potential class members are similarly situated to the named plaintiffs if they are similarly situated with respect to their job requirements and pay provisions