 Because women have a higher hiring rate, they are selected for calculation of disparate rejection rate.  At 55% *4/5ths, the disparate rejection rate is 44%.  We then compare men’s hiring rate to the disparate rejection rate.  Because the hiring rate for men if 47%, higher than 44%, men are not adversely impacted by the hiring policies in place.
	We then turn our attention to race.  We calculate the hiring rate for each ethnicity.  Immediately, the hiring rate for African Americans jumps out at us at 0%.  However, because there was only one African American applicant, the group does not make up at least 2% of the applicant pool of 100, so the 4/5ths rule does not apply to the group.  Whites and Hispanics have hiring rates of 64% and 42% respectively.  Because Hispanics have a higher rate, they are selected for determination of disparate rejection rates.  64% * 4/5ths = 51%.  We then compare the hiring rate for Whites with the disparate rejection rates, and since 42% is less than 64%, whites are adversely impacted by the hiring policies currently in place.  This example shows not only that the majority can be adversely impacted, but also that some hiring policies that seem very egalitarian, hiring 25 Whites and 25 Hispanics seems as equal as can be, but further examination reveals the disparate impact.
	Suppose a White plaintiff was to bring this information to light in a lawsuit against the employer, he would have proven a ‘prima facie’ case of discrimination, showing that the employer’s selection procedures had an adverse impact on a protected class.  Just because there is adverse impact does not mean that the employer may not use the selection procedure, but the burden of proof shifts to the employer once adverse impact has been established as in the above example.
	There are two basic defenses against the employment practices that have adverse impact on protected groups, the bona fide occupational qualification defense and the business necessity defense.  The bona fide occupational qualification allows employers to hire “on the basis of religion, sex or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.”  The business necessity requires showing that there is an overriding business purpose for the discriminatory practice, and that the practice is therefore acceptable.  In the above example, suppose that the employer required employees to be bilingual because most of its business is done in Mexico, the employer could therefore justify its discriminatory hiring practices because of overwhelming business purpose.  By establishing positive correlations between test results, like those of the wonderlic test, and job performance, a company can prove that the test, while creating an adverse impact, is still representative of job performance and therefore a reasonable policy to maintain regardless of its discriminatory impact.

	Absolutely yes. 