The Crucial Role of Comparators in Disparate Treatment Cases – Part 2

Part 2 of our comparator analysis dives into an EEOC decision that illustrates the real-world impact of effective comparator data.

Case Study: EEOC Appeal No. 0120151282

In this case, the complainant, an African American GS-8 Senior Officer Specialist, was denied training opportunities. The agency claimed he was denied because:

He was an alternate, not a primary, security officer;
There was no available funding.

However, two white employees—also alternate security officers—were approved for the same training. The agency’s rationale of “no funding” wasn’t applied to these comparators. Additionally, multiple witness statements suggested a pattern of intentional exclusion of African American staff from training and promotional opportunities. An affidavit even alleged discriminatory animus by decision-makers.

Outcome: The Commission found racial discrimination, emphasizing that comparator data exposed the agency’s inconsistent and unsubstantiated justifications.

What Do Effective Comparator Questions Look Like?

Example A: Surface-Level Inquiry

Question: Were any employees in your position approved for training?

Name: Jane Doe
Title: Senior Officer Specialist, GS-8
Race: White
Supervisor: Sam Security
Approving Official: Warden Jones
Justification: They were primary officers and funding was available

Analysis: This provides a basic contrast but accepts the agency’s rationale at face value.

Example B: Deeper Insight

Question: Were any other GS-8 alternate officers approved for training by Warden Jones during the same period?

Jane Doe, alternate, approved due to available funding

Analysis: This undermines the agency’s justification and raises questions about consistency.

The Importance of a Follow-Up

Follow-up questions transform a surface comparison into compelling evidence:

Why was funding available for one alternate but not another?

What criteria were used to approve training?

Are these decisions documented?

Is there a pattern in training approvals by race or other protected characteristics?

Conclusion: A Call To Investigate Excellence

Comparator analysis is not a procedural checkbox—it’s a cornerstone of credible investigations. The right questions can reveal inconsistencies, rebut weak justifications, and support findings of discrimination. Investigators must approach comparators with rigor, empathy, and adaptability.

EEO Guidance on Comparator Use

EEOC’s Management Directive 110 (MD-110) and Compliance Manual reinforce the significance of comparator analysis. Appendix J of MD-110 explains that a prima facie case requires showing that similarly situated individuals outside the protected class received better treatment. Factors like supervisory chain and work unit are critical in defining comparability.