holds the delicate balance between sometimes conflicting rights steady and true. This approach is also scrupulously fair. To punish providers when they satisfy an objective standard based on the best evidence available at the time of their decisions would be to punish them for a lack of clairvoyance. By the same token, to hold providers harmless after they have refused treatment based on nothing more than unfounded trepidation would run at cross-purposes with the central theme of the ADA. Fundamental fairness insists that providers in such circumstances ought not to be entitled to rely on subsequent understandings to shield them from the condign consequences of discriminatory conduct. Cf. McKennon v. Nashville Banner Pub. Co., 613 U.S. 352, —, 115 S.Ct. 879, 885, 130 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995) (<HOLDING>); North Shore Univ. Hosp. v. Rosa, 86 N.Y.2d
holding that disparate impact analysis may be applied to subjective employment practices in employment discrimination actions holding in an employment discrimination case that the continued employment of the plaintiffs rival in a position previously held by the plaintiff did not constitute a systemic violation holding that conduct causing public humiliation was not an actionable adverse employment action because public perceptions were not a term or condition of employment of the plaintiffs employment holding that the relevant time is the time of the employment decision holding that an employer in an employment discrimination case may not justify its conduct based on evidence that did not motivate it at the time of the employment decision