Plaintiff failed to state a disparate impact claim against the County based on its policy of requiring every applicant for CalWorks welfare benefits to accept a home visit from a licensed county peace officer, which plaintiff claimed was traumatizing and stigmatizing.  To plead a disparate impact claim, plaintiff must allege that the defendant has adopted a facially neutral policy that disproportionately affected protected groups adversely.  Here, plaintiff could not prove that Blacks and Hispanics were disproportionately disadvantaged by the 100% home visit policy because that policy affected every CalWorks applicant equally.  The mere fact that there are proportionately more Blacks and Hispanics in the CalWorks applicant pool than in the county’s general population does not show disparate impact from the County’s policy, but only disproportionate poverty among minority groups.  The proper comparison is with other persons to whom the facially neutral policy applies–CalWorks applicants–not the general population of the County to most of whom the facially neutral policy does not apply.