What Does ‘Similarly Situated’ Mean — and Why Does It Matter?

Do you know what it means to be a “similarly situated” employee under the law? It’s important to have a clear grasp of this employment law concept, especially if you are contemplating or implementing a group layoff.

A recent decision from a federal appeals court takes a look at this important question – and gives HR professionals critical knowledge to manage a reduction-in-force.

Were These 2 Employees ‘Similarly Situated’?

In 1993, Clariant Plastics & Coatings USA, Inc., hired Dawn Hayes to work as a warehouse clerk in its shipping department. She performed her job well, and she was promoted to a post as a senior logistics clerk in 2015.

In February 2018, the company decided to implement a workforce reduction program. In connection with that move, its plant manager determined that the number of employees in the warehouse department where Hayes worked should be reduced. At the time, that department included Hayes and four males.

When Hayes’ name appeared on a list of employees who were selected for termination, the company’s regional HR partner raised a red flag. More specifically, she told its manufacturing director that one of Hayes’ male colleagues in her department had less seniority. She asked whether a skills assessment should be performed.

During her entire 25-year career at the company, Hayes had consistently received positive job performance reviews and had a nearly perfect attendance record. What about the man who caused concern for the HR partner? In addition to having less overall seniority than Hayes, he had been demoted from a managerial position and moved to the warehouse department in 2017.

Employer Missteps That Raise Legal Risks

After Hayes’ name had been placed on the termination list — and after the HR partner had raised her concerns — Hayes’ direct supervisor assigned her a job performance review score that was tied for highest in the warehouse department.

A few days later, the company finalized her severance agreement. Soon after that, the plant manager sent the manufacturing director a “rating sheet” that assigned Hayes the lowest score on her team. Two days later, the company terminated Hayes’ employment.

Hayes sued, alleging, among other things, that the company engaged in unlawful gender discrimination. A lower court ruled against her, and Hayes filed an appeal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit revived the gender discrimination claim.

Gender Discrimination Claims: What’s Needed to Win

To state a valid claim, Hayes had to show that she:

• Is a woman
• Suffered an adverse job action
• Was qualified for her job, and
• Was treated less favorably than, or was replaced by, a similarly situated employee.

The sticking point in this case was whether the male employee with less seniority, who was retained while Hayes was dismissed, was “similarly situated” to Hayes and was a valid comparator under the law.

The employer insisted the male employee was not similarly situated to Hayes because, unlike her, he had production experience, a forklift licensed and supervisory skills.

But that wasn’t enough to create enough separation between the two to dismiss them as valid comparators with one another, the appeals court said.

Essentially, the appeals court ruled that despite those dissimilarities, other factors brought the two close enough together for a jury to find that they were, in fact, valid comparators under the law.

‘Similarly Situated’: What to Look At

The appeals court noted that the two:

• Had similar job duties
• Were part of the same warehouse team
• Reported to the same manager; and
• Were subject to the same work standards.

An employee claiming unlawful bias does not need to prove an exact correlation with another employee who received more favorable treatment, the appeals court said. Instead, they just need to show they are similar to someone else in all relevant respects, it explained.

The company leaned on the male employee’s prior management role to support its position. But the male employee was demoted from that post, the appeals court noted.

As to the forklift license, the court pointed out that the male used a forklift only about once a month – and that Hayes had a forklift license but let it lapse because she was never asked to renew it or use a forklift.

A reasonable jury could find that Hayes and the male employee were similarly situated in all relevant aspects of their warehouse jobs, the appeals court said.

In addition, it said, a reasonable jury could find that Hayes had superior qualifications in relation to the male employee.

In sum, it found that a reasonable jury could conclude that the employer’s termination decision was motivated by gender bias.

‘Similarly Situated’ and Reductions in Force

Navigating the reduction-in-force landscape can get tricky in a hurry.

Here are some important keys to keep in mind.

• First, remember that to prove that a decision to let them go as part of a reduction-in-force was motivated by unlawful bias, one of the things employees generally must show is that a “similarly situated” employee outside their protected class was treated more favorably.
• Evaluating job performance inconsistently never bodes well for an employer – and looks even worse when the timing of a negative performance review looks like it was concocted after the fact to support a decision to let an employee go.
• In deciding whether employees are “similarly situated” under the law, remember that employees can be similarly situated even if they do not perform identical jobs. The key inquiry is whether they are similar in all relevant respects. There is no black-and-white simple test to apply here – just don’t be too quick to assume that slight differences in qualifications or job duties mean two employees are not similarly situated.
• In determining whether two employees are similarly situated, don’t rely solely on job labels. Instead, take a hard look at what they actually do on a day-to-day basis.

Hayes v. Clariant Plastics & Coatings USA, Inc., No. 24-1336 (6th Cir. 7/18/25).