different. Morales v. American Honda Motor Co., 151 F.3d 500, 514 (6th Cir.1998). Kinnard has failed to make such a showing. 2. The August 8, 2001 Letter from Morgan Branch Morgan Branch, an employee with the State of Tennessee Department of Education, allegedly sent an August 8, 2001 Letter (the “Letter”) to Kinnard. The Letter allegedly concerned the student-teacher ratio within the Rutherford County School System. J.A. at 350-51. Reviewing the alleged content of the Letter, this court finds that it was irrelevant because it failed to make the relevant comparison — i.e., between the percentage of African-American teachers in the school system to the percentage of African-Americans in the relevant labor market who might apply for a teaching job. Cf. Bell v. E.P.A., 232 F.3d 546, 553 (<HOLDING>). An absolute mismatch between the two groups
holding that general employment practices are relevant to eeoc investigation of individual disparate treatment claim holding that eeoc established prima facie disparate impact case in presenting statistical evidence comparing work force of employer with labor pool consisting of geographical area from which applications were received holding that in title vii disparate impact case an employer may rebut prima facie case of disparate impact by demonstrating that the employment policy at issue is related to the employees job performance and justified by business necessity holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of disparate impact despite a lack of statistical significance based on past discrimination which reduced the number of africanamericans eligible to sit for the promotional exam holding that statistical evidence that was too broad to support a prima facie case of systemic disparate treatment was nevertheless admissible in plaintiffs individual disparate treatment case but noting that a valid statistical analysis must encompass the rel evant labor market