(2) that she was similarly situated to an employee who was not a member of the protected class; and (3) that she and the similarly situated person were treated disparately”). 6 . McGill cites the testimony of secretary Ida Kingsberry as assertedly supporting her claim that none of the other secretaries who participated in the class were required to compensate for extra time away from their desks. See McGill Br. at 8, 11; Amicus Br. at 44-45. Kingsberry, however, did not testify that she (or any of the others) took off more than the lunch hour. To the contrary, Kingsberry testified that she “d[id] not ... think that Thu McGill was treated less favorably than others” in the department. J.A. at 375. 7 . See Neuren v. Adduci, Mastriani, Meeks & Schill, 43 F.3d 1507, 1514 (D.C.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). 8 .Cf. Aka, 156 F.3d at 1289 (noting that one
holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired 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 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 because the plaintiff did not allege facts indicating what specific medical information she provided to dps she failed to state a constitutional claim holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself