Has this just run its course, or has the change of administration played a role?
$3.8M for 5k+ employees at Google rates seems low.
$3.8M for 5k+ employees at Google rates seems low.
Plus they're "allocating a cash reserve [for] pay-equity adjustments for the next 5 years". Wouldn't the DoL prefer that Google stop systematically paying women 0.1% less than it pays men? Why is the solution "keep some petty cash on hand, in case we sue you again"? Why in the world does Google need to post a bond for $1.3 million? When has it had less than that amount freely available in its metaphorical pockets?
Which is to say, this is barely a slap on the wrist, par for the course on government actions against Google. Sundar Pichai will still continue to act like a crook because it pays to do so, he can't be thrown in jail for it and the penalties are always a fraction of the profits.
I think the important takeaway is that https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-google-discriminat... ("Google denies charges, says there is no gender pay gap") was a lie. And that https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/technology/google-gender-... ("Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity") was also certainly a lie.
And that there probably should be a lot of punitive damages here in addition to "back pay". At the very least, the taxpayers should be getting something back from all the years the DOL had to waste dealing with this case.
Huh? They tell you the amounts. By these back pay numbers, there definitely was no gender pay gap. And then...
> And that there probably should be a lot of punitive damages here in addition to "back pay".
Why? The putative victims suffered a barely measurable injury. Why would that indicate huge punitive damages?
How is "not hired" not a measurable injury? Google screwed their careers. And presumably these employees would be making six figure salaries... each. There's no way that the tiny amount of "back pay" here actually covers that or even close to it.