> That's fairly irrelevant considering it's true of any sample.
Yes, that's pretty much the point I'm making. The same argument applies to all claims of disparate impact. It occurs in every sample.
> edit: more detailed explanation by fennecfoxen
That explanation does not reflect the law. (Nor does yours.) Recall that the first disparate impact case ruled it was illegal to preserve a requirement that the company had imposed prior to the civil rights act, because of the effect that requirement had on black applicants. The shift from this set of requirements:
Must be white
Must have a college degree
to this one:
Must have a college degree
constitutes illegal discrimination
against blacks. Obviously no one claimed that the degree requirement was intended to keep blacks out.