From Yan Ping Xu v. The City of New York, et al., 16-4079 (2d Cir. Nov. 2, 2017) (Summary Order):
Xu alleged that Michael Hansen, a younger white male, was a similarly situated employee treated more favorably by her supervisors on the basis of race. Xu alleged that she and Hansen were both classified as “City Research Scientist I” and were therefore employed at the same occupational level. Xu also alleged that she trained Hansen on some aspects of programming, took over some of his responsibilities, and performed work that was both higher level and higher-quality than the work performed by Hansen. She further alleges that she received negative feedback from Zucker and King while Hansen received positive feedback, and that Hansen was improperly tasked with supervising her. These allegations of disparate treatment from a similarly situated colleague are sufficient to establish a prima facie case for discriminatory termination in violation of Title VII. For the same reason, we are compelled to vacate the dismissal of Xu’s claims under the NYSHRL and the NYCHRL, and remand for further proceedings, as those claims rest on the same allegations of disparate treatment.