failed to identify sufficiently one aspect of USX’s P & M hiring practice on which to predicate its claim of discrimination. Because the class did not isolate a single criterion of the hiring practice that was discriminatory, USX asserts that it has failed to meet its burden of proving direct causation between some criterion and the disparate result. Second, USX argues that the application of impact theory to this case unfairly deprives it of the ability to assert the defense of “business necessity.” That defense was established by the Supreme Court in Griggs as an employer’s only justifying response to an employee’s prima facie showing of discrimination under disparate impact analysis. See 401 U.S. at 431, 91 S.Ct. at 853; accord Albemarle Paper Co., 422 U.S. at 425, 95 S.Ct. at 2375 (<HOLDING>) USX argues that the class’s claim effectively
holding out admission to practice law when not admitted to practice holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute holding an employee is an agent of his employer where the employer assumes the right to control time manner and method of work holding that a loan transaction is a business practice under the ucl holding that in order for an employer to meet the business necessity test it must prove that the practice is significantly correlated with relevant work behavior