Gender-Pay Suit Against Google Seeks 'Fairness for Women'
A class action filed Thursday against Google Inc. claims the tech company systemically pays women less than men in similar jobs and also enables…
September 14, 2017 at 06:05 PM
4 minute read
The sex discrimination case filed in San Francisco Superior Court, Ellis v. Google, accuses the Mountain View, California, company of paying women at all levels less than men in comparable positions, assigning women lower-tier jobs with lower pay and compensation than men and promoting women less frequently. The lawsuit also claims Google failed to correct these issues even after being made aware of them.
“While Google has been an industry-leading tech innovator, its treatment of female employees has not entered the 21st century,” said Kelly Dermody of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, who was among the lawyers who filed the case. “This case seeks to ensure fairness for women at Google.”
The purported class of former and current employees is represented by Altshuler Berzon and Lieff Cabraser. The suit was filed on behalf of three women.
Google spokeswoman Gina Scigliano said in a statement that the company disagrees with the central allegations in the complaint, but the company will review the lawsuit. The company's statement said, in part, that job levels and promotions are determined through a “rigorous” process, which includes hiring and promotion committees and multiple levels of review.
“And we have extensive systems in place to ensure that we pay fairly,” Scigliano said in the statement. “But on all these topics, if we ever see individual discrepancies or problems, we work to fix them, because Google has always sought to be a great employer, for every one of our employees.”
This lawsuit puts a new spotlight on Google over claims the company hasn't done enough to boost gender diversity. The U.S. Labor Department has an ongoing investigation of Google, alleging gender disparities in pay at the company. Initial findings revealed alleged pay discrimination among the 21,000 employees at the company's headquarters at every level. Google has disputed these findings.
Google also recently fought with the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs over disclosure of salary records—a battle that Google won in part.
The lawsuit also follows the release of a memo written by a Google engineer who claimed on the internal document that, among other things, women were not biologically suitable for work in the technology industry and decried Google's efforts to level the playing field. The engineer James Damore was fired after the memo was made public and went viral.
Damore recently hired Harmeet Dhillon, head of San Francisco-based boutique employment firm Dhillon Law Group. Dhillon also represents current and former Google employees who claim they were discriminated against for their political views.
James Finberg of Altshuler Berzon told The Recorder this summer that the firm received dozens of responses in just a few weeks asking women to come forward if they experienced gender pay discrimination at Google. He said he was inspired to focus on Google after learning of the company's fight with the Labor Department.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three former Google employees, Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease and Kelli Wisuri, who said they believe they received fewer opportunities and less pay than their male counterparts. “Women should have the same opportunities as men, and receive equal pay for substantially similar work,” Wisuri said in a statement announcing the suit.
Related Articles:
|- Altshuler Firm Gears Up for Gender Pay Class Action Against Google
- Google Scores in Data Battle With Labor Department
- Legal Depts. Ask Firms for Diversity, Make Efforts In-House
Erin Mulvaney, based in Washington, covers labor and employment. Contact her at [email protected]. On Twitter: @erinmulvaney
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Wilson Sonsini Hit With Disability Discrimination Suit by Ex-Assistant
Ex-Twitter Exec Sues for $20M, Says Musk Fired Her as 'Petty Retribution'
Former Hallmark Casting Director Sues Network for Alleged Age Discrimination
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1While Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
- 2The Definition of Special Employment
- 3People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 4Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
- 5Divided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250