Judge Dismisses Lawsuit That Claims Google Paid Female Employees Less Than Male Colleagues (cnn.com)

A California judge has rejected a class action claim against Google for alleged gender inequity. In September, three female Google employees filed a lawsuit against Google, claiming the search giant "engaged in systemic and pervasive pay and promotion discrimination." They sought class action status on behalf of women who have worked at Google in California for the past four years. CNN reports: This week, a judge rejected their request to make the suit a class action. A judge ruled that the class was "overbroad," stating that it "does not purport to distinguish between female employees who may have valid claims against Google based upon its alleged conduct from those who do not." Jim Finberg, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said his clients plan to file an amended complaint seeking class action certification. He said it will address the court's ruling and make "clear that Google violates the California Equal Pay Act throughout California and throughout the class period by paying women less than men for substantially equal work in nearly every job classification."

Comments

Re:He's spending his budget. The other boss compet

[ShanghaiBill]

You claim that discrimination is self-correcting, but there is plenty of evidence that it is not. Racial segregation persisted for more than a century in America despite being against the economic interests of its practitioners.

Another example is sexual discrimination in Japan. Men are usually promoted based on seniority rather than competence, while women are generally excluded from the hierarchy. So it is common for a "super secretary" to be actually running the company, while her incompetent boss sits in his office and drinks tea. Some multi-nationals from America and Europe are able to take advantage of the situation by opening branches in Japan and hiring very competent women at bargain salaries. But there is little sign that Japanese companies are willing to change.

Re:divide & conquer

[squiggleslash]

An AC writes:

Yeah, just like how you blamed MRAs right before saying that

MRAs are not a men's rights movement in their current form, they're just a bunch of anti-feminists.

An actual men's rights movement would fight toxic assumptions about men and how men should behave, rather than encourage them. An actual men's rights movement would fight for better parental leave for men, not against child support.

The MRA's are a toxic group that's harming, rather than benefiting, men. They're not what AmiMojo or myself are referring to, and if you think they are, you're not paying attention.