In a significant legal victory, Ulku Rowe, a Google Cloud engineering director, will receive more than $1 million in compensation after accusing Google of gender-based discrimination and retaliation. The lawsuit alleged that Google initially hired Rowe at a lower-level position with lower pay compared to men with less experience who were hired simultaneously. Furthermore, she claimed she was passed over for a promotion in favor of a less qualified male colleague.
A Jury’s Verdict
A New York jury delivered its verdict on Friday, finding Google guilty of gender-based discrimination. As a result, Google has been ordered to pay Rowe a combined total of $1.15 million, covering punitive damages and compensation for the pain and suffering caused. However, the jury determined that Rowe did not prove Google violated New York’s equal pay law.
Rowe, who had 23 years of experience when she joined Google in 2017, asserted that she was offered a position with significantly lower pay than what men with similar qualifications were being offered.
A Message Against Discrimination
Cara Greene, the lead attorney representing Ulku Rowe, hailed the unanimous verdict as a validation of Rowe’s allegations and a resounding message against discrimination and retaliation in the workplace. The case comes nearly five years after approximately 20,000 Google employees staged a walkout to demand reforms related to the company’s handling of sexual misconduct and discrimination.
Despite Google’s commitment to address sexual harassment issues, its response on the topic of bias left room for improvement. The Rowe lawsuit marks the first of its kind that Google has faced since the employee protests in 2018. Greene emphasized that the historic decision was made possible in part due to those demonstrations.
Google’s Response
In response to the verdict, Google spokesperson Courtenay Mencini emphasized the company’s commitment to fairness and equity in its leveling and compensation processes. Mencini cited the jury’s finding that Google didn’t violate New York law as a testament to this commitment. However, Mencini also disagreed with the jury’s determination that Google had discriminated against Rowe.
“We disagree with the jury’s finding that Ms. Rowe was discriminated against on account of her gender or that she was retaliated against for raising concerns about her pay, level, and gender,” Mencini stated. Google emphasized its strict anti-retaliation policy and its serious approach to addressing employee concerns, indicating that Rowe’s concerns had been thoroughly investigated and found to lack evidence of discrimination or retaliation.
