No, because the analyzed data was of employees that had already had a past of leaving the company. It could be postulated that it is leaving out the perspective of those who might have joined if whatever driving factor behind the attrition were addressed head-on, rather than shielding their eyes from the problem.

The website Forbes offered several pieces of advice for handle the task of rapid employee turnover, and most of them revolve around analyzing the current situation for the true root of the problem. These involved: 1. Offering more ways for current employees to give feedback on what in the company dissatisfies them, either through survey, interview, or ____. And of course, all of this must be free from repercussion. 2. Get feedback from those that have already decided to leave, from forms such as independently held exit-interviews, statistical analysis of what types of people are predominantly leaving the company, and post-employee investigation (that's done within reason)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2019/04/04/have-a-turnover-problem-15-ways-to-find-out-why-employees-are-really-leaving/

Yes. The original inference she made, that the chief factor originating from the zip-code selection was the commuting distance put those from outside the close proximity white neighborhood at too steep a disadvantage to overcome. However, we should note that being that the people from these rich suburbs often have wealth to their name, a slue of other issues are observable when comparing them with their lower class competitors.

An example might be the family status of those in these minority rich communities. Lower income neighborhoods often have higher rates of single parents, or parents who can't afford a regular nannie and therefor require tough choices with time. Another might be the fact that their lower income means they might not have a car, or if they do have a car, it is being utilized by their spouse where they can't rely on its availability. Or that due to lack of actual home ownership, drives need to take multiple jobs, or seek income from illegal sources that can cause complications in employment further down the line. Without even needing to request any such info as family status in these resumes, a cacophony of prejudices information can be inferred, just from where they live.

She must create software that serves the company's needs, due to her position as their employee. However, she also has a duty to report observed bugs and the problematic patterns they lead to, while advocating for their solutions.

Failures to do so for situations such as this one could lead to lawsuits taken by individuals inadvertently harmed or discriminated by her deployed programs.

As a member of the human race, among a society of other multinational human beings, she owes her fellow man the right to be treated with equal rights and treatment, a principle enshrined in the in the ethical approach of Justice.

Instance of Google Photos labeling African Americans as Monkeys/Chimpanzees

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/03/15/470422089/can-computer-programs-be-racist-and-sexist

Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#:~:text=Disparate%20impact%20in%20United%20States,or%20landlords%20are%20formally%20neutral.

Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#:~:text=Disparate%20impact%20in%20United%20States,or%20landlords%20are%20formally%20neutral.

Look up more info on ASIS&T, and reason which points conflict with the current dilemma.

https://www.asist.org/

It is important to note, that employers have the right to request an applicant's residence address, though they can opt to not collect it until the final stages of the application process.

https://www.fmenews.com/ask-the-lawyers/employer-require-physical-address/

If these groups are truely a minority (look up Black/Latino vs White population statistics) in this country, then the fact that even despite the disparaging factors laid out earlier, they make up 4/5ths of all applications should send a signal to you that these groups might have passion for the field

(Though avoid profiling them, "Oh you're Latino, so you must want to work in retail.")

Make the correlation that a big reason these neighborhoods are white exclusive is because other groups can't get a foot in the door in these types of jobs, which means they lack the funds and motivation to expand to these areas.

Why only one mile? (Maybe make a comparison for how far one mile is in relative terms).

Ask if adequate public transportation connects their stores to the greater public.

Is this an actual violation of any laws? Is it illegal to prefer applications based on location?

The 80% test was originally framed by a panel of 32 professionals (called the Technical Advisory Committee on Testing, or TACT) assembled by the State of California Fair Employment Practice Commission (FEPC) in 1971, which published the State of California Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures in October 1972.

Originally, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures provided a simple "80 percent" rule for determining that a company's selection system was having an "adverse impact" on a minority group. The rule was based on the rates at which job applicants were hired. For example, if XYZ Company hired 50 percent of the men applying for work in a predominantly male occupation while hiring only 20 percent of the female applicants, one could look at the ratio of those two hiring rates to judge whether there might be a discrimination problem. The ratio of 20:50 means that the rate of hiring for female applicants is only 40 percent of the rate of hiring for male applicants. That is, 20 divided by 50 equals 0.40, which is equivalent to 40 percent. Clearly, 40 percent is well below the 80 percent that was arbitrarily set as an acceptable difference in hiring rates. Therefore, in this example, XYZ Company could have been called upon to prove that there was a legitimate reason for hiring men at a rate so much higher than the rate of hiring women.

A 2007 memorandum from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission suggests that a more defensible standard would be based on comparing a company's hiring rate of a particular group with the rate that would occur if the company simply selected people at random.[12] In other words, if a company's selection system made it statistically more difficult than pure chance for a member of a certain group, such as women or African-Americans, to get a job, then this could be reasonably viewed as evidence that the selection system was systematically screening out members of that social group.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact#The_80%_rule

The data she is working with is based only on employees that have been there.

If minoirities we're represented in the past, then their patterns won't be well represented in the future.

Besides, current employees have been leaving frequently. I think their data should be used with caution.

While an improvement, it isn't a guarantee that this was all the success that could be garnered vs a more inclusive algorithm.

With a greater field of candidates to chose from (since 80% of applications aren't white), their is bound to be a selection from them that could be a good match.

I don't think this is as discriminatory, so much as it is professional. You aren't inhibited from adding this to any resume, though the contents of the development could be unsavory for the recruiter.

Even if you start from smaller positions, if you honestly report the growth of your career, and the knowledge you took away from your experiences, I think most people can find success in that section.

This is somewhat fair. If the position benefits from someone having retail experience, it is natural to favor those who have it on their resume.

However, you do have to keep in mind that some won't have the opportunity to gather experience in that line of work. Some place needs to be their first start in the field.

This is a highly discriminatory factor.

Proximity to the store depends on which neighborhoods you live in. Choice of home is bound by the pricing you can afford.

Why would minorities be less likely to stay in the position?