Task: Text Completion
Input (English): a “particularized need and likely relevance” as justification for the conduct of discovery beyond the local units which made the decision to terminate. Id. at 1085. See also, Brown v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., 939 F.2d 946, 954 (11th Cir.1991) (“Unless it is clear that nationwide practices are relevant, discovery should be confined to the local units of a corporation.”) The Sixth Circuit has recently applied Earley’s approach to corporate-wide discovery in a Title VII case: It is well-settled that information concerning an employer’s general employment practices is relevant even to a Title VII individual disparate treatment claim. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); EEOC v. Roadway Express Inc., 750 F.2d 40 (6th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>) A plaintiff who must shoulder the burden of 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that general employment practices are relevant to eeoc investigation of individual disparate treatment claim (B) holding that plaintiff states a cause of action under  1981 by alleging that defendant harassed and retaliated against him for filing eeoc claim and otherwise attempting to receive redress for disparate treatment (C) 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 (D) holding that a patternorpractice claim is not available to individual plaintiffs although patternorpractice evidence may be relevant to proving an otherwiseviable individual claim for disparate treatment under the mcdonnell douglas framework (E) holding that disparate impact analysis may be applied to subjective employment practices in employment discrimination actions
Output (English): (A)