40-3 (providing just a list of Region 1B’s key staff, not a list of Regional Managers and Deputy Regional Managers nationwide). Even if Ms. Thompson had evidence supporting her allegations about the dearth of African-American women, she lacks comparative data about African-American women’s prevalence “in the applicant pool and the general population.” Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 899. “It is insufficient to merely show that one protected group forms a small percentage of the employer’s workforce ...; the plaintiff must compare the number of minorities hired with the number of minority applicants that were qualified for the position.” Bolden v. Clinton, 847 F.Supp.2d 28, 35 (D.D.C.2012). Moreover, putative disparities must be statistically significant to be probative of discrimination. See id. (<HOLDING>). Ms. Thompson does not compare the number of
holding the plaintiffs failure to identify an independently created right upon which her  1983 claim rested was fatal to her claim holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that plaintiff established a prima facie claim of retaliation because the defendants failure to transfer her out of her abusive working environment could be viewed as an adverse personnel action and there was a causal link between the filing of plaintiffs complaint and the defendants failure to transfer her holding that a plaintiffs failure to establish the statistical significance of her evidence fatally undermines her claim holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment