The Seventh Circuit held that while the plaintiff claimed that younger, non-African-American co-workers were paid more for equivalent work, she failed to show that the co-workers was similarly-situated as the co-workers performed different additional duties and, unlike the plaintiff, they had college degrees and performed tasks that required their college degree.
The Seventh Circuit also rejected plaintiff's discrimination claim based on the defendant's delay in processing her request for new job title and more pay arising out of her assumption of new duties, because: (1) the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the process for changing her title could have been accomplished prior to her announced retirement date; and (2) the plaintiff failed to present evidence to refute the defendant's claim that her assumption of additional duties constituted only a lateral change in jobs.
Finally, the fact that the decision-maker made a comment regarding the plaintiff's impending retirement date did not constitute evidence of age discrimination, since: (1) comments about retirement eligibility are not necessarily age-based; and (2) decision-maker was merely commenting on plaintiff's previously announced status as "short-timer."