1) The author did not cliam that women were either an 'economic minority', whatever that may be, or a numerical one.

2) Here's what the Slate article referenced here said:

"The data show that, on average, a person with a distinctively black name—whether it is a woman named Imani or a man named DeShawn—does have a worse life outcome than a woman named Molly or a man named Jake. But it isn't the fault of his or her name. If two black boys, Jake Williams and DeShawn Williams, are born in the same neighborhood and into the same familial and economic circumstances, they would likely have similar life outcomes. But the kind of parents who name their son Jake don't tend to live in the same neighborhoods or share economic circumstances with the kind of parents who name their son DeShawn. And that's why, on average, a boy named Jake will tend to earn more money and get more education than a boy named DeShawn. DeShawn's name is an indicator—but not a cause—of his life path."

Odd that you would provide a link to a source that refutes your assertion.

3) I would 'buy' that the executive who discriminates on this basis truly believes, rightly or wrongly that any white financial analyst is better than any non-white one. That is the basis of prejudiced thinking, is it not?

4) I don't 'buy' that company hiring managers make those decisions. They likely are made by higher level executives to increase profits by 'exploiting' the workers in those 'dark-skinned continents' who are paid lower wages, receive fewer, if any, benefits and have fewer, if any, employee rights than U.S. workers.

5) Who do YOU think holds the majority of those positions? (Puff, puff, "Ha, ha! Darn, dropped some ashes on my seersucker!")

6) Do you really 'buy' that the hiring managers check the home zip codes to determine the economic status the the applicants' neighborhoods and rejected them on that basis w/o regard to their qualifications?