statistically large enough workforce employs no African Americans, we can infer that the employer intentionally discriminates against African Americans in its hiring decisions. Wood-son argues that because Phoenix did just the opposite, hiring all African Americans, we should infer that Phoenix intentionally discriminated against African Americans. This argument is simply illogical, especially given that two of Phoenix’s goals are to provide scholarships and job opportunities to disadvantaged minorities. Even assuming that the “flip side of inexorable zero” theory had some merit, Phoenix’s small number of employees makes statistical evidence of no value in proving an employment discrimination claim. See Morgan v. Harris Trust and Sav. Bank of Chicago, 867 F.2d 1023, 1028 (7th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). Woodson also failed to put forth any evidence
holding that sample size of 14 employees was statistically insignificant and therefore that it was not proper to infer discriminatory intent holding blood sample does not constitute compelled testimony holding that a warrant to obtain a blood sample was valid despite a reference to a urine sample in the addendum to the affidavit because the minor inconsistency did not seriously undermine the information underlying the probable cause determination holding that when evidence was erroneously admitted such error was harmless when the evidence was insignificant and cumulative recognizing problems with generalizing from an extremely limited sample when a broader sample  can be readily obtained and when no showing of the representativeness of the sample is made