has Plaintiff pointed to any evidence which suggests that, for promotions, African-Americans are disproportionately affected when compared to other racial groups. See Pottenger v. Potlatch Corp., 329 F.3d 740, 749 (9th Cir.2003) (“Summary judgment is appropriate when statistics do not support a disparate impact analysis”); see also Lawrence v. Dep’t of Interior, 525 F.3d 916, 921 (9th Cir.2008) (affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer on a disparate impact claim, stating that plaintiff “presented evidence that the BIA’s policy affected some Indian employees, but he presented no evidence that the failure to provide actual and timely notice disproportionately affected Indians more than other racial groups.”); Paige v. California, 291 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted). In
recognizing that a showing of scope of employment is unnecessary under a negligent hiring theory holding that language in employee handbook stating that it was not to be considered as creating terms and conditions of an employment contract and that the employment relationship was employment atwill  was sufficiently explicit to preclude the creation of implied contractual obligations as a matter of law recognizing that sjtatistical evidence is used to demonstrate how a particular employment practice causes a protected minority group to be under represented in a specific area of employment for example hiring or promotion and stating that the statistical analysis must show a disparity that is sufficiently substantial holding that plaintiffs evidence of statistical disparities in hiring promotion and compensation was sufficient to support claim of intentional discrimination where the employment decisions were based on completely subjective criteria holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that it is the application of a specific or particular employment practice that has created the disparate impact under attack