business need and the job related standard inquires whether there is a correlation between the criteria used and successful job performance. Plaintiffs do not question that Defendants discharged a large number of employees due to a business necessity. Instead, Plaintiffs challenge whether the selection process was job related. Here the fact that the mill formulated a rating system in which subjective decisions would be made does not mean that the practice is immune to challenge for illicit discrimination. Disparate impact theory arises in large part from the notion that facially neutral practices might be “the functional equivalent of a pretext for discriminatory treatment.” Watson, 487 U.S. at 998, 108 S.Ct. at 2791. See also Wards Cove, 490 U.S. at 660-61, 109 S.Ct. at 2126-27 (<HOLDING>). The question, therefore, is whether the
holding that a refusal to grant such a petition should nevertheless be accompanied by reasons therefore holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 holding that a refusal to adopt equally effective alternative defeats disparate impact justification because such a refusal would belie a claim by the employers that their incumbent practices are being employed for nondiscriminatory reasons holding that an insurer is not liable for punitive damages by its refusal to pay a claim unless such refusal is accompanied by a malicious intent to injure or defraud holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547