in cases involving challenge to multicomponent, subjective criteria hiring system is improper because it unjustly burdens employers); Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 798 F.2d 791 (5th Cir.1986) (same), cert. granted, — U.S. —, 107 S.Ct. 3227, 97 L.Ed.2d 734 (1987), argued Jan. 20, 1988, 56 U.S.L.W. 3513 (U.S. Feb. 2, 1988) and E.E.O.C. v. Federal Reserve Bank, 698 F.2d 633, 639 (4th Cir.1983) (challenge that is not directed to “ ‘specific procedure ... [that] has a discriminatory impact on blacks’ ... does not fit within the model disparate impact claim”) (quoting Pouncey, 668 F.2d at 800), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank, 467 U.S. 867,104 S.Ct. 2794, 81 L.Ed.2d 718 (1984) with Atonio v. Wards Cove Parking Co., 810 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir.1987) (en banc) (<HOLDING>) petition for cert. filed, 56 U.S.L.W. 3670
holding that there is no disparate impact claim under the adea holding that general employment practices are relevant to eeoc investigation of individual disparate treatment claim holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate that it is the application of a specific or particular employment practice that has created the disparate impact under attack holding that disparate impact analysis may be applied to subjective employment practices in employment discrimination actions 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