Ukpai I. Ukpai v. Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT The questions deal with whether the circuit court’s analysis that concluded that two employees are not similarly situated, though both engaged in the same conduct under the supervision of the same person, violates the intent of the McDonnell/Green Scheme for proving a prima facie case for employment discrimination. The questions also deal with whether the circuit court’s opinion is inconsistent with numerous of its and other circuits’ opinions, as well as numerous holdings of this Court including Federal Rule 56 and the standard of drawing all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Can Courts find that two employees are not similarly situated though both employees performed the same conduct under the supervision of the same supervisor with the same set of rules and policies? And, would such a ruling be consistent with the intent and meaning of the “Similarly Situated” concept or be so onerous as to violate the intent established in McDonnel/Green scheme by this Court?

2. Should courts make presumptions in favor of the moving party in a summary judgment proceeding?