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
holding that krs  3373852 prevents class certification under rule 23 in federal court because of the rules enabling act holding that rule 5 prohibits a trial court from enlarging the period for taking action under the rules relating to new trials holding that pleading rules are substantive holding that the rules enabling act precludes rule from abridging enlarging or modifying any substantive right holding that rules allowing multiple claims to be litigated together  including rule 23  are categorically valid under the rules enabling act