actions. b. The Court will Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Title VII Disparate-Treatment Discrimination Claims to the Extent that They are Based on Discrimination Against Anglos Without Prejudice for Failure to State a Claim, Because the Plaintiffs do not Provide Circumstances to Make Plausible that the CCSD is an Employer That Would Discriminate Against Anglos. The Defendants suggest that there is a question whether “Anglos (presumably meaning non-Hispanic Caucasians) are a protected class,” for purposes of the Plaintiffs’ § 1983, § 1985(3), and Title VII claims. Motion to Dismiss at 15. Anglos are a historically favored group and are not a protected group for purposes of disparate-treatment discrimination cases. See Notari v. Denver Water Dep’t, 971 F.2d 585, 588-89 (10th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>)(quoting Livingston v. Roadway Express Inc.,
holding that a white office was not similarly situated to a black officer who was charged with more offenses than the white officer holding that plaintiff who was iranian is a member of a protected class holding that a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case need show only that he is a member of a protected group and whites are a protected group under title vii holding that a white male is not in a protected class for purposes of his discrimination claim because a white male is not  a member of an historically favored group  recognizing that plaintiff who is not actually disabled may still be a member of third protected class