With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". approach is appropriate); see also Waisome, 948 F.2d at 1376 (noting that courts should “consider[ ] not ligibility list from the 2008 exam had not been extended due to the Lopez litigation, but instead had expired three years after its creation, as is typical, not a single black sergeant would have been promoted to lieutenant. 01/06/15 Tr. 144-45. Lastly, the Court views as likely the probability that the 2008 figures underestimate the disparate impact considering that at least some of these test-takers had presumably passed the 2005 sergeants’ exam, which Boston conceded as having a disparate impact on minority candidates. Lopez, at 20; see also Nash v. Consol. City of Jacksonville, Duval Cty., Fla., 895 F.Supp. 1536, 1544 (M.D.Fla.1995) aff'd sub nom., 85 F.3d 643 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). All of this evidence combined is enough for

A: 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
B: 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
C: holding that a petitioner did not make a prima facie showing of illegal discrimination because the petitioner needed to point to more facts than the number of africanamericans struck in order to establish a pattern of strikes supporting an inference of discrimination
D: 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
D.