Michael Gillis appeals the order of the district court 2 granting summary judgment to Crittenton. Mr. Gillis served as a behavioral health technician at Crittendon, a residential behavioral health center for minor children. When Mr. Gillis was terminated from his employment, he sued Crittenton for sex discrimination, alleging that Crittenton treated him differently from the way that it treated similarly situated female employees. Reviewing de novo, Rheineck v. Hutchinson Technology, Inc., 261 F.3d 751, 755 (8th Cir. 2001), we affirm.

Under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973), Mr. Gillis was required to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Assuming, without deciding, that he did so, Crittenton, in turn, was required to articulate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate Mr. Gillis. See id. at 802-04, 93 S.Ct. 1817. Crittenton produced evidence that it terminated Mr. Gillis because of his excessive absenteeism. The burden then fell upon Mr. Gillis to show that the reason given by Crittenton was a pretext for discrimination. See id. at 804-05, 93 S.Ct. 1817. Mr. Gillis failed to satisfy this burden because the persons with whom he sought to compare himself were not similarly situated to him in all relevant respects. See Cronquist v. City of Minneapolis, 237 F.3d 920, 928 (8th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.