With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at 360, 97 S.Ct. 1843. Moreover, we also recognized that the pattern-or-practice method of proof had, in the past, been viewed as “no more than an application of the McDonnell Douglas “burden-shifting framework” to claims brought either by the government on behalf of a group of employees or by class plaintiffs. 685 F.3d at 147-148. Parisi recognizes that non-government plaintiffs can use the pattern-or-practice method only in class actions and argues that she is therefore entitled to pursue a class action in court. This logic is flawed. The availability of the class action Rule 23 mechanism presupposes the existence of a claim; Rule 23 cannot create a non-waivable, substantive right to bring such a claim. Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2561, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he right of a litigant to employ Rule 23

A: holding that rule 5 prohibits a trial court from enlarging the period for taking action under the rules relating to new trials
B: holding that pleading rules are substantive
C: holding that the rules enabling act precludes rule from abridging enlarging or modifying any substantive right
D: holding that krs  3373852 prevents class certification under rule 23 in federal court because of the rules enabling act
C.