(PresidentialHill.com)- To resolve a dispute alleging that the internet giant paid female employees less than men for comparable work, Google has agreed to pay $118 million in damages.
As part of the settlement deal reached on Friday, putting an end to a lawsuit that former employees initially filed in 2017, a third party will also investigate the pay practices of Google.
At this point, a San Francisco Superior Court judge needs to sanction the agreement.
Since September 14, 2013, the settlement has applied to about 15,500 female employees working in California across 236 job categories.
Holly Pease, a former Google manager who filed a lawsuit against the company, expressed her optimism that the actions Google has agreed to take as part of this settlement will ensure more equity for women. Pease was the plaintiff in the lawsuit and has spent her entire career working in the technology industry.
Since its inception, Google has consistently dominated the technology industry. They also can take the lead in ensuring that women in the technology industry are included and treated fairly.
The lawsuit accused Google of discriminating against female employees by “systematically paying” them lower compensation than male employees, as well as by assigning and keeping women in job levels with lower compensation ceilings and advancement opportunities than they do for men with similar skills and experience.
A representative for Google stated that the company is “absolutely committed to paying, hiring, and leveling all employees fairly and equally” and that for the past nine years, the company has conducted a “rigorous pay equity analysis” to ensure that salaries, bonuses, and equity awards are distributed equitably.
Google said after almost five years of litigation, both sides agreed that the resolution of the matter, without any admission or findings, was in the best interest of everyone.
A spokesman said that while they firmly believe in the fairness of their policies and practices, the fact that they were able to get to this arrangement makes them “very happy.”
It sounds like they anticipated paying more.
Why would you be happy if you firmly believe in the fairness of your policies but have to shell out 118 million bucks?