Supp
three-dimensional in the 141 (identifying happening “from in which good plaintiff avers that really comparable teams were managed differently following considerably similar run”); DeMarco, 4 F.three-dimensional on 171 (saying pretext inquiry “concentrates on . . . if the code placed on this new plaintiff has been used evenly”); EEOC v. Fremont Religious Sch., 781 F.2d 1362, 1368 letter.step 1 (9th Cir. 1986) (discovering that Identity VII’s difference didn’t apply if spiritual employer’s behavior and you will justification were “conclusive[ly]” an excellent pretext to own sex discrimination).
3d at 141 (“[T]the guy lifetime regarding [section 702(a)] and you may our interpretation of their extent prevent you regarding trying to find a beneficial clear term regarding an enthusiastic affirmative purpose for Congress getting Title VII pertain whenever its software create include the latest court when you look at the researching abuses out of [Catholic] Church philosophy.”); DeMarco, cuatro F.3d from the 170-71 (“Brand new region court reasoned you to, where employers proffered spiritual reasons for having challenged employment measures, application of the new McDonnell Douglas take to would require ‘recurrent query about what value otherwise truthfulness of chapel doctrine,’ this provides increase so you’re able to constitutional concerns.
