of medical techniques and practices. As a result, Title VII is not applicable to the contention that the infertility exclusion has a greater impact on women because they are the ones who are required to undergo a majority of the treatment. The plaintiffs second argument fails because the plaintiff has not provided evidence that female participants in plaintiffs medical plan and their dependent spouses incurred disproportionately more of the costs of infertility treatments than did male plan participants and their dependent spouses. Plaintiffs evidence of the disparate impact caused by the Plan’s infertility exclusion is probably sufficient to demonstrate a discriminatory impact between male and female employees. Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Inc., 939 F.2d 610, 612-14 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). However, the plaintiffs failed to analyze the
holding that the corroborating evidence need not be medical evidence if the appellant explains why medical evidence is not available holding that statistical evidence of less than two standard deviations may be relevant when corroborated by other evidence holding that medical evidence and a statistical study by the military was sufficient evidence to prove a discriminatory impact holding that evidence which suggests but does not prove a discriminatory motive is circumstantial evidence by definition holding that when plaintiffs allege classwide racially discriminatory treatment in violation of title vii proof of discriminatory motive is essential although the burden may be met in some situations by presentation of statistical evidence that permits an inference of racial discrimination