that a disparate impact analysis on employee benefits should include all benefits provided to an employee. Therefore, a disparate impact analysis may include an analysis of the benefits an employee's dependents receives, as well as the benefits the employee receives. 8 . Defendant argues that the disparate impact theory of liability is not applicable in an insurance context. While this Court does not directly decide this issue because summary judgment is granted on other grounds, the Court does note that neither City of Los Angeles v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) nor any other cases directly hold that the disparate impact theory of liability is not applicable in insurance contexts. See Wambheim v. J.C. Penney Comp., Inc., 705 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir.1983)
holding that to determine whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee the court examines if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employers stated reason for the firing is pretext holding that an action by a health care provider to recover payment from an insurance carrier is sufficiently distinct from an action by a plan participant against the insurer seeking recovery of benefits due under the terms of the insurance plan and therefore preemption in the former case would stretch the connected with or related to standard too far holding that a disparate impact analysis could be applied to a determination of whether an employers insurance plan discriminated with respect to compensation terms conditions or privileges of employment holding the same with respect to an apartment holding that paid adminis trative leave pending investigation does not constitute adverse employment action because terms conditions or benefits of a persons employment do not typically if ever include general immunity from the application of basic employment policies or exemption from an employers disciplinary procedures