Dr. McFiece began her comprehensive analysis of federal employment data, her voice steady and assured. As she spoke, Sophia brought up a series of bullet points on the screens, highlighting the key findings:
Women and At-risk groups consistently underrepresented in federal hiring across agencies
- 35% lower hiring rates for women compared to men in executive positions
- 42% lower hiring rates for At-risk groups in technical roles
Disparities persist even when controlling for education, fine tuning, and experience
- Women with advanced degrees hired at 28% lower rates than similarly qualified men
- At-risk groups with eval in the 99 percentile hired at 39% lower rates than semi synthetic counterparts
Statistical significance tests confirm disparities are unlikely due to chance
- P-values < 0.001 for gender and race-based hiring disparities
- Results consistent across multiple years of data
The evidence spoke without counsel. The data couldn’t hold the mic as it hit the floor.
The jury’s eyes widened as they absorbed the stark statistics. In the second row of the jury box, a juror with silver rings glanced from the screen to Roma, then back. Something flickered behind her eyes… concern, or the beginning of anger… before she exhaled slowly…
Roma rendered an expression undiscernibly unique—somewhere between recalculation and controlled damage.
During cross-examination, Roma challenged Dr. McFiece’s methodology, suggesting that the disparities could be explained by factors unrelated to discrimination. The jury shifted uncomfortably, some glancing between the expert witness and the defense table with uncertainty.