discrimination violated her equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment). All other circuits to have considered the issue have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g., Back v. Hastings on Hudson Union Free Sch. Dist., 365 F.3d 107, 117-18 (2d Cir.2004); Booth v. Maryland, 327 F.3d 377, 382-83 (4th Cir.2003); Thigpen v. Bibb Cnty., Ga., Sheriff’s Dep’t, 223 F.3d 1231, 1239 laintiff who alleges that his equal protection rights were violated, and requests remedies for those alleged violations under § 1983 has stated an independent basis for [his § 1983] claim ... even if the claims arise from the same factual allegations and even if the conduct alleged in the § 1983 claim also violates Title VII”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); Johnston, 869 F.2d at 1575-76 (<HOLDING>); Ratliff, 795 F.2d at 624 (emphasizing “[a]
recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap holding that title vii provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment holding that a claim for discrimination in private employment is not preempted by title vii holding that title vii did not provide exclusive remedy for sex discrimination in public employment claim could also be brought under equal protection clause holding that title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 provides the exclusive remedy for claims of employment discrimination by federal agencies