ABC is a non-unionized company. The majority of the company's non-minority workforce has been with the company for over 20 years. However, the company's most recent hires have been minorities, as the company has desired to achieve a workforce more consistent with the minority population in its relevant recruiting area. The company's HR Director has proposed laying off employees based on seniority. That would result in 60% of the layoffs coming from minority employees (240) and 40% coming from non-minorities (160). However, the owner of the company prefers that the layoff should affect minority and non-minority employees equally so that 200 minority and 200 non-minority employees are laid off. Other than the owner, who are the primary and secondary stakeholders in this decision? From a legal perspective, is either approach discriminatory? Why or why not? If both the owner's approach and the HR approach are legal, are there any ethical issues involved in deciding whom to lay off? If so, what are they? Which approach would you select for the layoff decision, the owner's or the HR Director's? Why did you select that approach