omitted). First, Title VII proscribes any “unlawful employment practice,” which includes “any employment practice” in which the Plaintiffs’ “religion ..: was a motivating factor for” that practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m). According to the Complaint, the Defendants violated that statutory right by allegedly reassigning the Plaintiffs to lower coordinator and clerical positions, with the promise that their salaries would be cut in half at the end of their contracts, because of their Mormon religion. They violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to equal protection of the laws under the Equal Protection Clause with the same conduct when, as pleaded, it was not based on any compelling interest. See, e.g., Colo. Christian Univ. v. Weaver, 534 F.3d 1245, 1257-58 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>)(citing, among others, Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S.
holding that nearly identical kansas statute did not violate equal protection clause when subjected to strict scrutiny recognizing harassment claim under equal protection clause based on sexual orientation holding that in light of engquist the equal protection clause does not apply to a public employee asserting a violation of the clause based on a class of one theory of liability holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause holding no violation of federal establishment clause