With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Vacancy Announcement, Pl.’s Opp’n at 37-38, also lacks merit. The plaintiff has not presented any evidence that reviewing the candidates’ applications at one stage in the selection process and distinguishing the candidates based on interview performance at a later stage is inconsistent with the FDIC’s standard hiring procedure or represents a deviation from the evaluation methods in the Vacancy Announcement. See generally Pl.’s Opp’n at 37-38. Moreover, even if there were some evidence that relying solely on interview performance to rank candidates constituted a departure from procedure, the plaintiff has offered no evidence suggesting that the Panel’s lack of attention to the candidates’ written application materials evinces a discriminatory motive. See Hamilton, 542 F.Supp.2d at 48 (<HOLDING>). Indeed, this Circuit has explicitly observed

A: holding that a nonapplicant may pursue a title vii action on a showing that he was deterred from applying by the employers discriminatory practices
B: recognizing that the mcdonnell douglas framework is less useful in the context of an alleged discriminatory disciplinary decision than in the context of an alleged discriminatory hiring decision
C: holding that any irregularities must indicate discriminatory hiring practices
D: holding that discriminatory employment practices are cognizable under title ix
C.