[ddiq]

No CEO would say this, even if they thought it, because it could be used in evidence in a diversity lawsuit under the 80% rule of diverse impact, because the CEO was intentionally using neutral rules of hiring that ended in "discriminatory" results.

[gnicholas]

> because the CEO was intentionally using neutral rules of hiring that ended in "discriminatory" results.

Against what baseline? The results are only discriminatory against a baseline in which affirmative action is baked in. But this can't be the proper baseline, because if it is then any amount of affirmative action can be called into question.

Does your company practice some affirmative action? That has a disparate impact that hurts minorities, because you could be doing more affirmative action!

Edit: simplified my original reply

[ddiq]

You can read more about the baseline known as the 80% rule here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#The_80%_rule

Since the onus is on the employer to prove that they had a legitimate reason for this disparate impact, often these cases end in settlement.

[marcinzm]

Based on studies (ie: resumes with different names, etc.) the baseline is for hiring decisions to be racially motivated against minorities.