as a discriminatory employment practice. Hill v. Mississippi State Employment Service, 918 F.2d 1233, 1240 (5th Cir.1990). The human resources department at Lufkin directs each applicant to one of the several divisions within the company where the decision to hire is made. Plaintiffs assert (and their statistics support), that African-Americans are over represented .in difficult and unpleasant jobs, and under represented in less strenuous positions. This channeling process is not guided by any objective standards or procedures of reviewing them. Unfettered discretionary authority applied to promotions also supports claims of disparate impact. Carpenter v. Stephen F. Austin State University, 706 F.2d 608, 614. See also Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc., 673 F.2d 798, (5th Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). The Fifth Circuit “has recognized that
holding that reasonable reliance is not an element of the defense holding in the context of a non  212c iirira retroactivity challenge that if reliance were required we would insist at most upon objectively reasonable reliance and not subjective reliance holding that direct reliance was not shown where plaintiffs relied on third partys actions which were in turn undertaken in reliance on alleged misrepresentation by defendant holding that reliance on recommendations of supervisors in making promotions had discriminatory effect holding supervisors reference to plaintiff as that white boy was sufficient direct evidence of discriminatory intent for mixedmotives jury instruction