should not be forgotten simply because the “fair form” is a subjective one. 1 It bears noting that the question on which we granted certiorari, and the question presented in petitioner’s brief, is whether disparate-impact analysis applies to subjective practices, not where the burdens fall, if the analysis applies. The plurality need not have reached its discussion of burden allocation and evidentiary standards to resolve the question presented. I, however, find it necessary to reach this issue in order to respond to remarks made by the plurality. 2 I have no quarrel with the plurality’s characterization of the plaintiff’s burden of establishing that any disparity is significant. See ante, at 994-997. 3 See Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 252, n. 5 (1981) (<HOLDING>); United States Postal Service Bd. of Governors
recognizing that the power of disallowance of claims conferred on the bankruptcy courts embraces the rejection of claims in whole or in part according to the equities of the case and emphasizing that a bankruptcy court may therefore limit the amount of claims in view of equitable considerations recognizing in the context of articulating allocation of burdens applicable to disparatetreatment claims that the factual issues and therefore the character of the evidence presented differ when the plaintiff claims that a facially neutral employment policy has a discriminatory impact on protected classes holding that as to allocation of burdens it is not material that the facts of the case and the causes of the collision are peculiarly within the knowledge of the respondents  we are not aware   of any ground on which such an inconvenience can affect the rule of law which governs the rights of the parties internal quotation marks omitted holding that courts should consider the merits of the litigants claims the nature of the factual issues the litigants ability to present his claims and the complexity of the legal issues holding when constitutional claims are premised on the notion that the united states has some contractual obligation to the plaintiff that it has failed to satisfy the claims are contractually based and must be heard in the court of federal claims