IV. Analyse Gender discrimination at Google
1. History of this rising problem
2015: The U.S. Department of Labor launches an investigation into Google's hiring practices, alleging that the company has a systemic gender pay gap.
2017: A former Google employee, James Damore, writes a memo that criticises the company's diversity initiatives and argues that biological differences between men and women could explain why there were fewer women in tech jobs.
2017: Multiple women say they faced regular discrimination and ultimately left. Qichen Zhang couldn’t believe what she was hearing. The technical specialist was in the middle of the office at Google when a white male colleague began joking with her about her hiring. “He said, ‘It must’ve been really easy for you to get your job because you’re an Asian woman and people assume you’re good at math”. The conversation was one of many instances where Zhang said she felt isolated as a woman of colour working for the technology giant, and a few months later, feeling like there was no future for her at Google, she quit.
August 2017: The memo goes viral, and Damore is subsequently fired from Google.
September 2017: Several current and former female employees at Google come forward with their own stories of discrimination and harassment, sparking a broader discussion about diversity and inclusion in the tech industry.
October 2017: A group of women files a class-action lawsuit against Google, alleging gender discrimination in pay and promotions.
January 2018: Two former Google employees, one black and one Hispanic, file a lawsuit against the company, alleging that they were retaliated against for speaking out about racial discrimination at Google.
May 2018: Google releases a diversity report that shows that women make up 31% of the company's workforce and that the percentage of women in leadership positions had increased from 20.8% to 25.5% in the previous year.
September 2018: Google agrees to pay $90 million to settle the gender pay discrimination lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Labor.
November 2018: Google agrees to overhaul its sexual harassment policies following a global walkout by thousands of employees who protested the company's handling of sexual harassment allegations.
2019: Diversity Annual Report expands to include LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, military and veterans, and non-binary Googlers globally.
March 2019: Google agrees to pay $40 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging age discrimination in its hiring practices.
2020: Racial equity commitments launch to build sustainable equity for Google’s Black community and make our products and programs helpful to Black users.
February 2020: Google agrees to pay $310 million to settle the gender pay and promotion discrimination lawsuit brought by the group of women in 2017.
December 2020: The National Labor Relations Board files a complaint against Google, alleging that the company illegally spied on and retaliated against workers who organised protests and spoke out against the company's policies.
2021: Google faced a lawsuit that they underpaid female workers in violation of California's Equal Pay Act, citing a wage gap of around $17,000. The complaint also alleged that Google locks women into lower career tracks, leading to less pay and lower bonuses when compared to their male counterparts. The plaintiffs won the class-action status in 2021.
2021: Google invests $50 million in Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the U.S. in order to better address the diversity gap in tech.
2022: Google agreed to pay $118 million to settle a class-action gender discrimination lawsuit that included around 15,500 women.
2. Example of Gender discrimination at Google
a. Overview of the case
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP and Altshuler Berzon LLP serve as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and a Certified Class in Ellis v. Google LLC, No. CGC-17-561299, a gender discrimination lawsuit pending in San Francisco Superior Court since 2017.
The case challenges two systemic practices at Google. First, Plaintiffs allege that Google pays women less than men in the same job code, in violation of California’s Equal Pay Act, California Labor Code §1197.5 (“EPA”), which requires that men and women performing substantially equal or similar work be paid equally, and in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code §17200 (“UCL”), by virtue of the EPA violation. Second, Plaintiffs allege that Google assigns women to lower job levels than men with comparable experience and education based on lower pay at prior employment, in violation of the UCL by virtue of a violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §12900 et seq. (“FEHA”). On May 27, 2021, the Court certified these claims for class action treatment.
b. Information on the named plaintiffs
The Named Plaintiffs are Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, Kelli Wisuri, and Heidi Lamar. All of the Named Plaintiffs are women who worked for Google in California in a Covered Position since September 14, 2013. Their backgrounds are:
Plaintiff Kelly Ellis worked as a Software Engineer at Google’s Mountain View office for approximately four years, departing the company with the title of Senior Manager.
Plaintiff Holly Pease worked for Google for approximately 10.5 years, in both Mountain View and Sunnyvale, holding numerous technical leadership roles, including: Manager, Corporate Network Engineering; Manager, Business Systems Integration; Manager, Corporate Data Warehouse/Reporting Team; and Senior Manager, Business Systems Integration.
Plaintiff Kelli Wisuri worked for Google for approximately 2.5 years in its Mountain View office, as an Enterprise Operations Coordinator, Enterprise Sales Operations Associate, and Google Brand Evangelist, Executive Communications Program (aka Sales Solutions Senior Associate).
Plaintiff Heidi Lamar worked as a Preschool Teacher and Infant/Toddler Teacher at Google’s Children Center in Palo Alto for approximately four years.
c. Summary of the case
Case filling (September 2017): On September 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this gender discrimination case against Google in California state court. Filed under California’s newly amended equal pay law, the class action breaks new ground in tech, as it seeks to address pervasive pay discrimination and the pernicious practice of using candidates’ past salary information to determine their pay rate, a process that perpetuates the gender wage gap. While Plaintiffs originally sought to represent a class of all women employed by Google in California at any time in the previous four years, on January 3, 2018, Plaintiffs limited their proposed class to women in the 226 Covered Positions through a First Amended Complaint. On March 27, 2018, the Honourable Mary E. Wiss issued an order finding Plaintiffs’ classwide allegations sufficient to survive Google’s attempts to have them dismissed and/or stricken.
Class certification update (May 2021):
On May 27, 2021, the Honourable Andrew Y.S. Cheng issued an order certifying a Class of current and former female Google workers who allege the tech giant engaged in systemic and pervasive pay and levelling discrimination against its female employees in California, at times paying women thousands of dollars less than their male counterparts.
The Court certified the following Classes: (1) all women employed by Google in a Covered Position in California at any time from September 14, 2013 through the date of trial in this Action (the “Equal Pay Claim Class”); and (2) all women employed by Google in a Covered Position in California at any time from September 14, 2013 through the date of trial in this Action, excluding campus hires and women hired after August 28, 2017 (the “FEHA Claim Subclass”). The Court also certified Plaintiffs’ claim for waiting time penalties under California Labor Code §§ 201-203.
Settlement update (July 2022):
On June 10, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. If approved, the parties’ Settlement will resolve Plaintiffs’ certified EPA and FEHA claims against Google, as well as their Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor Code § 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) claims. The settlement covers approximately 15,500 women employed in California by Google in 236 different job titles (the “Covered Positions”) since September 14, 2013. On July 25, 2022, the Honourable Andrew Y.S. Cheng issued an order granting preliminary approval to the settlement. By August 28, 2022, a third-party administrator will issue notice to the Class Members of the Settlement. The final approval hearing is set for October 31, at 3:00 p.m.
The Settlement resolves these claims by: (1) creating a non-reversionary monetary fund of $118 million, to redress past harms; and (2) providing for substantial programmatic relief, to prevent future harms. This programmatic relief includes engagement of independent third-party experts selected jointly by the parties to evaluate how Google might improve both its annual pay equity process and its processes for setting level at hire, as well as an external monitor to oversee Google’s good faith efforts to address the experts’ recommendations. The post-settlement work will be supervised over the next three years. Plaintiffs believe these programs will help ensure that women are not paid less than their male counterparts who perform substantially similar work, and that Google’s challenged levelling practices are equitable.
If the court later grants final approval of the settlement, the third-party administrator will allocate settlement amounts to each participating Class Member based on an objective formula, detailed in the agreed upon Plan of Allocation.
3. Explain the factors affecting this problem
a. Lack of diversity
Among the factors that contribute to this problem, the most notable one is diversity, which shapes preferences for rewards, communication styles, reactions to leaders, negotiation styles, and many other aspects of behaviour in an organisation. In the case of Google, an easily perceived characteristic that causes gender discrimination at the workplace is gender difference, a surface-level diversity. To be more specific, the recognized biological difference between man and woman in the company. Although studies have shown that there are no consistent male-female differences in problem-solving ability, analytical skills, or learning abilities, yet as we have noticed, gender biases and stereotypes still exist.
The above data is collected from Google’s annual report, and it clearly illustrates that the number of female employees are always less than men, and this gap doesn’t seem to change over time. As mentioned, the lack of gender diversity at the workplace may negatively affect how each individual as well as the organisation view the minority group, which is the women workers.
b. Gender pay gap
In 2021, The UK Government requires organisations with 250 or more employees to publish and report specific figures about their gender pay gap. The gender pay gap is the difference between the average earnings of those that identify as men and those that identify as women, expressed relative to men’s earnings. Google had also shared their figure, shown in the below chart.
The difference in the average hourly pay rate between women and men at Google, expressed as a percentage of the average male earnings, illustrates that: the median hourly gender pay gap is 18 percent and the mean hourly pay gap is 17 percent, both in favour of men. The chart also shows the proportion of women Googlers in each pay quartile; there is a 39 percent median and 51 percent mean difference in bonus and equity pay in favour of men. Although these percentage gaps appear to be driven by a lack of representation of women in senior leadership, long-tenured roles, and engineering/technical roles, it may lead to discord within the company. Several lawsuits have taken place with the plaintiff alleging that women are being paid less than men in the same position; one of them has been mentioned in the above case.
c. Perception
The way employees judge people differently also explains gender discrimination, especially when they make inaccurate assumptions about others through common shortcuts such as contrast effect and stereotyping. For instance, in 2017, James Damore’s 10-page manifesto against Google’s diversity initiatives reportedly went viral inside the company. In the memo, this software engineer argues that women are not underrepresented in tech because they face bias and discrimination in the workplace, but because inherent psychological sex differences render women unsuitable for tech-oriented jobs. Damore himself admits:
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.
He also claimed that the challenges women face in the workplace in general — not just in tech — are a direct outcome of other “innate” personality differences, namely:
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusionary programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.
Therefore, we must be aware of two takeaway messages from the Google memo debacle. First, gender stereotypes are still alive and thriving in the workplace, and they continue to distort assessment of women’s potential and performance. The second is how wrongly psychological science is often interpreted by those with social and political agendas.
d. Organisational culture
The culture of an organisation plays a significant role in shaping the attitudes and behaviours of its employees toward issues such as gender discrimination. At Google, the company culture has been criticised for perpetuating gender discrimination and creating a hostile work environment for women. Research has shown that organisational culture can influence the prevalence of gender discrimination in several ways.
Firstly, the values, beliefs, and attitudes of the leadership team can have a significant impact on the culture of the organisation. If the leadership team is not committed to promoting gender equality and diversity, then the culture of the organisation may not prioritise these values. In the case of Google, the company's leadership has been accused of ignoring or downplaying issues of gender discrimination, perpetuating a culture that fails to prioritise diversity and inclusion.
Secondly, organisational culture can influence the attitudes and behaviours of individual employees. When individuals within an organisation hold stereotypical views or unconscious biases about women and their abilities, it can lead to discriminatory behaviour. In the case of Google, the culture of the organisation has been described as promoting a "bro culture" that excludes and demeans women. This culture is characterised by a lack of diversity and a focus on traditionally masculine traits such as aggression and competition. These traits are often valued over qualities associated with women, such as collaboration and empathy. This causes stereotype threat, which means women may feel excluded and undervalued within the organisation, leading to a hostile work environment.
4. Impact of Gender discrimination at Google
Although there are no public reports of gender discrimination at Google having an impact on issues such as job satisfaction, employee engagement, counterproductive work behaviour,... at the individual level nor the group level; it still causes harmful results within the organisation:
Individual Mental Health Issues: If someone is experiencing gender discrimination at work, mental health issues often follow. An individual being discriminated against may develop higher anxiety levels, be more prone to outbursts and depression. She might turn to drugs or alcohol to cope, and that could adversely affect her ability to perform her job duties. Mental health issues are also a major concern for business owners who have unstable employees taking retaliatory actions in the workplace.
Increased Workplace Conflict: Discrimination is a form of harassment, and it has increased the conflict in the work environment. Team focus shifts from job duties to the drama of the office. It can fracture a team, with one group siding with the person discriminated against, and one side for the alleged discriminator. Conflict like this is not good for the workplace, and it can affect the job performance of an entire department or team.
Poor Company Morale: When conflict increases in the office, people feel it. It permeates the company, down to the least-significant activities, such as getting coffee at a different time to avoid the conflict. The overall morale of the team falls, as people start walking on eggshells to avoid any escalation in the conflict. Poor morale has a negative effect on corporate culture and is directly felt by customers.
Reduced Organisational Productivity: With increases in conflict and morale falling, office productivity will diminish, as well. As a business leader, you know that employees who are happy and comfortable at work are the best performers. When people are trying to avoid negative behaviour, such as experiencing or witnessing gender discrimination, it can have a significant impact on the bottom line of the business itself.
Consider Legal Issues: Employers need to be concerned with more than just the company morale and productivity when it comes to gender discrimination. There are legal issues to consider. Discrimination of any sort, including gender equality, can lead to adverse legal actions. If your company doesn't address discrimination accusations and actions appropriately, a disgruntled employee could bring a lawsuit against the company for not protecting his rights.
5. Management tools that Google have applied
a. The measures that Google has taken to resolve discrimination
Google has implemented a number of management tools and practices to resolve discrimination and promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including diversity training, hiring initiatives, and employee resource groups:
Diversity training: Google offers a variety of diversity training programs for its employees to help them understand and address unconscious bias and create more inclusive work environments. Google has implemented diversity training programs to promote a more inclusive workplace. The company has contracted Performance Paradigm to develop its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, Examined Human and Digital Human. Google has also committed to training more than 250,000 Black, Latino, and Indigenous students by 2025 and providing 100,000 Black women with career development and digital skills training by spring 2022. In addition, Google's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) sessions provide knowledge and create space within the broader cloud community about the role everyone can play in ensuring they are building for everyone.
For example, Googlers have to undergo training about diversity that starts with optical illusions — two things that look the same but measured separately, really aren't — and moves on to more concrete workplace scenarios. The idea is, everyone has errors in their judgement. It's not pointing fingers.
They’ve also created targeted career development and promotion programs for women Googlers at every hiring level, from entry-level to the director.
Hiring initiatives: Google has implemented hiring initiatives to prioritise diversity, equity, and inclusion in its hiring process. The company is committed to becoming an inclusive employer through a range of long-term strategies and an overall commitment to positive change. Google has also hired a Program Manager for Research, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion to drive diversity and inclusion initiatives and build sourcing, recruitment, and hiring strategy for Research talent. In addition, Google's Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) sessions provide knowledge and create space within the broader cloud community. These hiring initiatives are important steps toward promoting diversity and inclusion at Google. we’re focused on ensuring fairness throughout the employee lifecycle to help women and gender-expansive people thrive. They’ve ensured pay equity for all women employees globally since 2017, and have shared their approach for others to use.
Google has created internal policies to alleviate stressors that tend to disproportionately impact women. For example, they expanded their Carer’s Leave from 4 to 14 weeks of paid time away with reimbursement for up to 20 days of caregiver costs.
To address issues of inappropriate conduct in the workplace, they overhauled their internal processes and added new care programs for people who report concerns.
They have been cultivating community through conferences like Transcend, their first Women of Color Summit, and through their employee resource groups (ERGs) like Women@Google and Trans at Google.
They’ve engaged over 4,000 Google managers and leaders in #ItsUpToMe, an internal allyship campaign to hold them accountable as people craft and reach their diversity, equity, and inclusion goals.
Employee Resource Groups: Google has established 16 Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) globally to support underrepresented groups and provide a sense of community and belonging. These ERGs include groups for women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, Black and African American employees, mixed race and mixed ethnicity Googlers, and more. The ERGs hold social events, provide mentorship and career development opportunities, and advocate for policies and practices that promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace. These ERGs are an important part of Google's efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
In 2022, Google expanded an ERG called the Parents and Caregivers ERG, designed to support Googlers in a parent or caregiving role.
Referring to the 2017 case, as part of the settlement, Google will allow an outside monitor to review its practices and let third-party experts assess how it could improve its pay equity process and be fairer when establishing rank and pay for new hires. There will also be an external monitor to assess whether the company is following the experts' recommendations. These measures are aimed at ensuring more equity for women and promoting diversity and inclusion in the workplace.
b. Evaluate the effectiveness of these measures
Google has implemented diversity training programs for its employees as a management tool to address discrimination and promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace. The effectiveness of diversity training in achieving these goals at Google is a subject of debate. A former Google employee, James Damore, who was fired for writing a memo that criticised the company's diversity efforts, claimed that diversity training had backfired and was not effective in reducing bias. However, it is important to note that Damore's views are controversial and not representative of all employees at Google. Furthermore, Empirical research on the effectiveness of diversity training in addressing discrimination and promoting diversity and inclusion at Google specifically is limited. However, studies on diversity training more broadly have produced mixed results. For instance, a study by the University of Pennsylvania found that mandatory diversity training had little to no effect on increasing diversity and reducing bias in the workplace.
But the effort of Google should not be neglected. Google has contracted Performance Paradigm to develop its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, Examined Human and Digital Human, to improve hiring practices. While the effectiveness of these programs is not yet clear, it is important for Google to continue to evaluate and improve its approach to diversity training to ensure that it is effective in promoting diversity and inclusion. It is also important for the company to create a culture where all employees feel empowered and have a strong sense of belonging, which can be achieved through community building and shared experiences.
Google has implemented hiring initiatives to prioritise diversity, equity, and inclusion in its hiring process. In 2021, Google achieved its best year yet for hiring women globally, as well as Black+ and Latinx+ employees in the U.S. The company has developed new ways to prioritise diversity, equity, and inclusion in its hiring process and is committed to creating a more inclusive workplace. Google's hiring committees are made up of leaders in the specific organisation doing the hiring, and members serve on the committee for three to six months before being rotated out of the committee. The hiring manager is not part of the committee, which ensures that hiring decisions are made based on a consensus of multiple perspectives.
They were proud that in 2021, the number of employees from underrepresented communities at Google grew more quickly—with Black+ representation growing 2x faster—than Googlers overall. Much of this growth is attributable to strong hiring efforts in 2021. They had the largest percentages ever of Black+ and Latinx+ new hires in the U.S. and women new hires globally.
Employee Resource Groups (ERGs) at Google have a positive impact on the company's culture and help minority employees and their allies feel a feeling of belonging. ERGs aim to guarantee that underrepresented groups' perspectives are heard by providing a supportive network. They also contribute to a sense of belonging and an inclusive culture at Google. ERGs organise social gatherings, offer mentorship and professional development opportunities, and advocate for workplace policies and practices that promote diversity and inclusion. ERGs also help to advance a diverse and fair Google by ensuring parity in how the company sources and hires new employees, as well as in performance reviews, promotions, and retention. The ERGs are an important part of Google's efforts to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace. They provide a supportive community for underrepresented groups and help to ensure that their voices are heard.