Supp
three dimensional at the 141 (distinguishing the outcome “from a single where good plaintiff avers that truly comparable group was in fact handled in different ways following the substantially similar carry out”); DeMarco, 4 F.3d at 171 (claiming pretext inquiry “is targeted on . . . whether or not the rule applied to brand new plaintiff could have been applied evenly”); EEOC v. Fremont Religious Sch., 781 F.2d 1362, 1368 letter.step one (9th Cir. 1986) (finding that Identity VII’s exception to this rule did not use if religious employer’s practice and you may excuse had been “conclusive[ly]” a good pretext to possess sex discrimination).
three dimensional at 141 (“[T]he lifestyle from [area 702(a)] and you can all of our translation of their range avoid you of looking good obvious term off an affirmative intention with respect to Congress for Title VII use when their app would encompass the brand new courtroom into the evaluating abuses from [Catholic] Chapel philosophy.”); DeMarco, cuatro F.three dimensional within 170-71 (“New section court reasoned you to definitely, in which employers proffered religious things about confronted a career tips, application of the brand new McDonnell Douglas sample would require ‘perennial inquiry as to the worthy of or truthfulness out-of chapel doctrine,’ this provides you with go up so you’re able to constitutional issues. Continue reading Alternatively, the fresh query are led on the choosing whether or not the articulated goal are the genuine objective into confronted a career-associated step