qualities that have never been considered amenable to standardized testing”). As Falcon stated, a plaintiff seeking class treatment for an alleged general policy of discrimination must offer “significant proof’ that the alleged policy manifested itself in the “same general fashion” as to all putative class members. Falcon, 457 U.S. at 159 n. 15, 102 S.Ct. 2364. Subjective employment processes may provide a common basis for a classwide claim of discrimination if the subjective employment criteria were uniformly “used as a mask for discrimination,” or “to evade statutory anti-discrimination rules.” Millbrook v. IBP, Inc., 280 F.3d 1169, 1176 (7th Cir.2002) (internal citations and quotations omitted). See, e.g., Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 156 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). After careful consideration, we conclude that
holding that the housing authority could not be held liable for the allegedly discriminatory behavior of a supervisor because the supervisors alleged behavior was contrary to stated housing authority policy holding that the delegation of discretionary authority to supervisors for discipline and promotion constituted a policy or practice sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding that availability of discretionary judicial review is sufficient to satisfy third younger requirement recognizing exception to application requirement when employer does not notify employees of available promotion and does not provide formal mechanism for expressing interest in promotion