With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". at PA. However, this alone, does not prove discriminatory intent. Notably missing is any evidence that the disparity is the result of discrimination. To the contrary, there is no evidence that women at PA have repeatedly sought and been turned down for the partnership rank. See, e.g., Roberson v. Snow, 404 F.Supp.2d 79, 91 (D.D.C.2005) (ruling that plaintiffs attempt to show pretext by pointing to historical disparities within the company was unavailing because he “failed to show actual statistics comparing rates of promotion at [the company] between similarly situated black and white employees, or even statistics comparing rates of hiring black and white applicants to their presence in the applicant pool”); Metrocare v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 679 F.2d 922, 930 (D.C.Cir.1982) (<HOLDING>). Having considered all of the record evidence

A: holding that blacks who were not subjected to racial discrimination had standing under title vii to sue over discrimination against other blacks
B: holding that while proper statistical evidence can be the most important vehicle for showing class discrimination the plaintiff failed to compare the percentage of blacks hired for given jobs with the percentage of blacks qualified for those positions and it was not sufficient to merely show that black managers formed a smaller percentage of the manager pool than did managers of other races
C: holding that a prima facie case of discrimination is not established merely by the number of peremptory strikes against blacks in cases where the percentage of blacks on the empaneled jury is higher than the percentage of the venire pool
D: holding that the percentage of minority faculty need not approximate the percentage of minority students
B.