> If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate The fact that there is a different in outcome produced by two group

> If there is a difference in value, then it isn't illegal to choose the superior candidate The fact that there is a different in outcome produced by two groups, doesn't mean there wasn't discrimination as a root cause of it. An example would be, group A and group B. Members of Group A when they join the team receive mentorship, feedback and constructive reviews. Members of Group B receive due to biases in the company. As a result members of group A perform better. The fact that group A performed better doesn't mean that this isn't inequitable discrimination. Nor does it make it ok to excluding hiring members from group B because you know your company will successfully discriminate against Bs and cause them to perform worse. I'm not saying this is what's happening here - I'm showing that your premise is false - that a difference in outcome doesn't mean discrimination isn't a root cause.