at 651, 109 S.Ct. at 2122; see also New York City Transit Auth. v. Beazer, 440 U.S. 568, 585-86, 99 S.Ct. 1355, 1365-66, 59 L.Ed.2d 587 (1979) (where plaintiffs challenged city’s policy of not employing persons using methadone as having a disparate impact on blacks and Hispanics, statistics indicating the racial composition of methadone users throughout the whole city “tells us nothing about the class of otherwise-qualified applicants and employees[,]” in part because “a substantial portion of the persons included in [the city-wide figures] are either unqualified for other reasons— such as the illicit use of drugs and alcohol' — or have received successful assistance in finding jobs with employers other than [the defendant]”); Maddox v. Claytor, 764 F.2d 1539, 1549-50 (11th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). “To adequately assess statistical data, there
recognizing women as a distinct group holding that in the absence of written contracts the manager of a singing group may own the rights to the name if he or she remains continuously involved with the group and is in a position to control the quality of its services 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 plaintiffs statistics did not shed any light on the legally relevant issue because they did not indicate the group of applicants who were interviewed or even the group of applicants found qualified or the group of all applicants holding that the defendant did not prove that italianamericans are a cognizable group