dissenting in part.1
In defense of its decision to pay Lorenz more than Warren for doing the same work, Solo has focused almost entirely on one factor that distinguishes the two employees: Lorenz’s computer skills. In the course of acquiring his bachelor’s degree and two master’s degrees, Lorenz had been trained in how to use computers and was comfortable doing so. Warren, by contrast, had no training related to computers and described her proficiency in that regard as “kind of mediocre.” R. 11-3, Warren Dep. at 51. Because the crib attendant position involved the use of a computer, Lorenz’s greater facility with computer work amounts to a facially legitimate, non-discriminatory reason to pay him more than Warren. If the record before us were limited to the comparative skills of Lorenz and Warren, that would be enough to sustain the entry of summary *632judgment against Warren on her disparate pay claims.
However, Solo’s action (or rather, its inaction) vis-a-vis another computer-sawy employee, Sandra Weir, calls into question the veracity of its rationale for paying Lorenz more than Warren. Solo has articulated the same reason for hiring Lorenz into the crib attendant position as it has for deciding to pay him more: his computer expertise. But, as it turns out, Lorenz was not the only individual interested in the position who had such expertise. Sandra Weir was a security guard at Solo who, like Lorenz, lost that job when the company decided to outsource its security. Weir, like Lorenz, had computer training and experience: she had taken a college course in computers several years earlier, and she had held two prior jobs in which she used computers to track parts inventories, which is exactly what the crib attendant position involved. Moreover, in the months proceeding the decision to outsource the security positions, Weir had told Holzhauer, the individual responsible for the tool crib, and Peyton, the manager of Human Resources, that she was interested in a crib attendant position. This was in contrast to Lorenz, who had never approached anyone in the company about that position. Weir had also told Hol-zhauer and Peyton about her experience with computers, so they were on notice of that experience. Yet, despite Weir’s expressed interest in position, the company never interviewed her for or contacted her about the position; the company did not even follow up with Weir about the extent of her computer-related training and experience. The job was offered only to Lorenz. Indeed, after Weir learned that she was losing her job to outsourcing, she again spoke with Peyton about a position in the tool crib, and he told her there was no opening. If, as Solo has represented, the company’s prime focus in selecting someone for the position was on computer expertise, then its disregard of Weir as a candidate is, to say the least, curious.
My colleagues profess to be mystified as to the import of Weir and her credentials, ante at 630-31 n. 4, but to me the relevance is obvious. I understand, of course, that Weir is not a party to this suit and that Solo is not being sued for its decision to place Lorenz in the crib attendant position. Yet, even if the facts concerning the company’s decision to pass over Weir in favor of Lorenz for the crib attendant position are viewed as “other acts” evidence, see Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), it is well-settled that such evidence may be relevant and admissible to establish an employer’s discriminatory intent or to show pretext. Manuel v. City of Chicago, 335 F.3d 592, 596 (7th Cir.2003) (citing Vance v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 863 F.2d 1503, 1511 n. 5 (11th Cir.1989)); Molnar v. Booth, 229 F.3d 593, 603-04 (7th Cir.2000); see also Vance v. Union Planters Corp., 209 F.3d 438, 445 n. 8 (5th Cir.2000) (collxases). To my mind, however, this is not “other acts” evidence at all, but rather evidence that directly bears on the veracity of the company’s stated reason for paying Lorenz more to work in the tool crib than it paid Warren. The company’s stated rationale for putting him in that position and its justification for paying him more for that work are one and the same: his computer literacy. This makes the process by which Solo selected Lorenz for the job pertinent. If, as Solo represents, its foremost concern in filling the new position in the tool crib was computer literacy, one would think that it would not have brushed aside Weir as a candidate for that position. Both Weir and Lorenz had computer expertise, both were security guards who lost their positions to outsourcing, and Weir, in contrast to Lorenz, had affirmatively expressed her interest in the crib attendant *633position. There may have been distinctions between the two that made Lorenz the more attractive candidate, but if so they are not evident from the record before us. The relevant point is that the • company offered the job to Lorenz without even approaching Weir and without any inquiry into their relative expertise. Faced with that evidence, a reasonable factfinder could think that the company’s proffered reason for putting Lorenz into the tool crib position, and for paying Lorenz more than Warren for that job, was pretextual.
Solo has hinted at a second reason for compensating Lorenz at a higher rate than Warren — his higher level of education. Why Lorenz’s multiple degrees are relevant to a position in the tool crib is not apparent to me. The areas in which Lorenz had obtained his degrees had nothing to do with the responsibilities of the position. The fact is, Lorenz’s three degrees rendered him vastly overqualified for a position that required only a high school degree or the equivalent. But for our purposes, the more relevant point is that Solo has not established that Lorenz’s overall level of education was an independent reason for its decision to pay him more than Warren. Lorenz’s computer expertise has always been the central and dispositive factor Solo has relied on. See R. 32, Defendant’s Amended Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment at 13 ¶ 33 Response (describing “computer skills and computer work” as “the critical inquiry” regarding the pay disparity between Lorenz and Warren); id. at 33 (“The focal point is the computer component to the tool crib position in December 2002.”); see also R. 11-4, Peyton Dep. at 74 (“[Lorenz’s] computer skills led us to believe that he was the best candidate.”); R. 11-6, Holzhauer Dep. at 39 (“the person I was looking for needed to be very computer-literate to be able to handle the work that was required”). His substantial post-secondary education simply explained how Lorenz came to possess that expertise. See R. 11, Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment at 13 (“During his educational training, Lorenz stated he took computer courses that Solo believed made him uniquely qualified for a tool crib attendant position following implementation of the computer component of the MP2 Inventory Control Program.”). Solo has, it is true, made vague allusions to Lorenz’s “background” and “potential” as reasons for paying him more than Warren. R. 11-4, Peyton Dep. at 44. Perhaps Solo believed that Lorenz’s multiple degrees made him an attractive prospect for future promotion to more responsible positions within the company. If so, however, the company has not adequately developed this as a second and independent reason for deciding to pay him more than Warren.
The evidence Warren has proffered as to Weir suffices to establish a question of fact as to the veracity of Solo’s rationale for paying Lorenz more than Warren for doing the same work and as to whether Warren was similarly situated to Lorenz in material respects. For that reason, I would reverse the grant of summary judgment as to Warren’s disparate claims under the Equal Pay Act and Title VII.
. I join the court’s opinion in one respect: I agree that Warren did not timely assert, and therefore waived, a claim under Title VII for discriminatory discharge. Ante at 629 n. 3.