practice. As noted above, Plaintiff has failed to indicate a specific facially neutral practice other than the use of manager discretion in compensation decisions. Further, Plaintiff has presented only company-wide statistics and does not tailor the data to control for factors such as skill level and experience. For Plaintiff to establish that the use of a practice as broad and amorphous as manager discretion causes a statistically significant disparity would require Plaintiff to eliminate the effect of variation in these factors, which she has failed to do in the statistics currently before the Court. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs disparate impact claim is GRANTED. Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1118 (11th Cir. 1993) (<HOLDING>). For the reasons stated above, Defendants’
holding that evidence of an employers 100healed policy was relevant to the issue of perceived disability at the summary judgment stage holding that a party who fails to provide sufficient evidence at trial cannot object to the resulting determination on the basis of inadequate evidence holding that employer is entitled to summary judgment unless the plaintiff proffers sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether each of the employers articulated reasons is pretextual holding that movant is entitled to summary judgment when party with burden of proof fails to establish genuine fact issue holding that employer is entitled to summary judgment where plaintiff fails to provide evidence necessary to prove at trial that there is disproportionate impact of employers policy on black employees