if you can show how those 8 white women at the top level are getting less for equal positions than do the 40 white and Asian men, then you may have a point. Otherwise, all you're showing is a male and Asian dominated industry (and thus you would expect that to filter to the top level and all levels) which of course is going to lead to a male and Asian heavy top level. I'm guessing you can find other industries which are the reverse (fashion, cosmetics, nursing, etc), but that doesn't make it a reverse pay gap either.

Now it's possible that gap is also the case, when you see a stat like this "Two-thirds of employees fall into a job group called “professionals,” which includes includes non-managerial office workers and programmers. Nearly all earn at least $80,000 per year, but white and Asian men have the highest salaries. Black, Hispanic and other minorities are overrepresented in the bottom half of the pay ranges." but not in and of itself (could still be just that the male and Asian heavy participation leads to those same groups still dominating the upper end of that grouping). And that runs contrary to Intel's claim "Intel announced in January that it had met its goal of equal pay for men and women who do the same work."

Disproportionate numbers of males at the top end of the pay scale does not equal a "pay gap" or support the suggestion that women only earn 80% of what men earn (as is implied by those pushing that claim). That disproportionate representation may be a problem or not in the co's best interest, but it's not a "pay gap" or "paying women less for the same work as a man".