labor market” is the population of workers who, among other things, live within the geographical area from, which that employer’s employees and job applicants are drawn. See Rivera v. City of Wichita Falls, 665 F.2d 531, 540-41 (5th Cir.1982) (noting that source of relevant labor market is almost always defined in part in geographical terms), rev’d on other grounds. “Applicant flow” refers to all actual applicants who are qualified to apply and to be considered for the position or positions at issue. Provided that the applicant flow is not tainted by discriminatory recruiting practices and is not otherwise biased or distorted, applicant flow is a rehable indicator of an employer’s relevant labor market. See E.E.O.C. v. Olson’s Dairy Queens, Inc., 989 F.2d 165, 168-69 (5th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). In 1990, the Court denied the motion of the
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 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 there is no disparate impact claim under the adea 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