Under the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), the plaintiff must first demonstrate a prima facie case, and then the burden of production shifts to the defendant to proffer a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action. Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank , 665 F.3d 632, 636 (5th Cir. 2011). If it does that, “the presumption of discrimination disappears.” Id. The plaintiff, who always has the ultimate burden, must then “produce substantial evidence indicating that the proffered legitimate nondiscriminatory reason is a pretext for discrimination.”

"[A] ‘judge's function’ at summary judgment is not ‘to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.’ " Cotton , 134 S.Ct. at 1866 (quoting Anderson , 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ); seeStewart v. Guzman , 555 Fed.Appx. 425, 430 (5th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (citing Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank , 665 F.3d 632, 635 (5th Cir. 2011) (In ruling on a summary judgment motion, "[w]e neither engage in credibility determinations nor weigh the evidence.")). With the foregoing standard in mind, the Court turns to the motions before it.

675 F.3d 887, 896 (5th Cir. 2012) (quoting from defendant's rule book, which provided: " [T]he conductor and the engineer are responsible for the safety and protection of their train [and] observance of the rules .... [I]f any doubts arise concerning the authority for proceeding or safety, the conductor must consult with the engineer who will be equally responsible for the safety and proper handling of the train." ); cf.Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, 665 F.3d 632, 637 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding three persons not to be comparators because two of them reported to, and had different job responsibilities than, the plaintiff; the third proposed comparator had the same title and reported indirectly to the same supervisor as the plaintiff, but had not committed any similar infractions).          On the other hand, in Marshall v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 576 F.2d 588, 592 (5th Cir. 1978), the appellate court held that the district court did not err in disallowing discovery where the plaintiff sought information regarding some 7,500 employees across 32 districts and three manufacturing plants.

And, critically, the plaintiff's conduct that drew the adverse employment decision must have been 'nearly identical' to that of the proffered comparator who allegedly drew dissimilar employment decisions." Id.; see also Vaughn v. Woodforest Bank, No. 11-60102, 2011 WL 6382033, at *4 (5th Cir. Dec. 21, 2011). However, the Fifth Circuit has also stated that the plaintiff "need only make a very minimal showing" to establish a prima facie case.