Employee Survival Guide®
The Employee Survival Guide® is an employees only podcast about everything related to work and working. We will share with you all the information your employer does not want you to know about working and guide you through various work and employment law issues.
The Employee Survival Guide® podcast is hosted by seasoned Employment Law Attorney Mark Carey, who has only practiced in the area of Employment Law for the past 28 years. Mark has seen just about every type of work dispute there is and has filed several hundred work related lawsuits in state and federal courts around the country, including class action suits. He has a no frills and blunt approach to work issues faced by millions of workers nationwide. Mark endeavors to provide both sides to each and every issue discussed on the podcast so you can make an informed decision.
Subscribe to our show in your favorite podcast app including Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and Overcast.
You can also subscribe to our feed via RSS or XML.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide ® please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Thank you!
For more information, please contact Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, or email at info@capclaw.com.
Also go to our website EmployeeSurvival.com for more helpful information about work and working.
Employee Survival Guide®
S6 Ep121: Rowe v. Google: Gender Discrimination and Retaliation Judgment $1,150,000
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
Ulku Rowe, a finance expert with impeccable credentials, takes on a tech giant and wins over a million dollars in a groundbreaking gender discrimination case. This riveting legal battle exposes the persistent challenges women face in male-dominated industries, even at companies that publicly champion diversity.
Having built her career at prestigious institutions like JPMorgan Chase and UBS, armed with advanced degrees and Fulbright Scholar status, Rowe brought exceptional expertise to Google Cloud. Despite consistently exceeding performance expectations, she discovered troubling disparities: male colleagues with similar backgrounds were hired at higher levels with better compensation, while she was passed over for a vice president position in favor of a less qualified male candidate.
When Rowe dared to speak up about these discrepancies, she alleges Google responded with thinly veiled retaliation. The subsequent legal showdown involved complex claims under multiple discrimination statutes. Google vigorously denied wrongdoing, claiming any differences in position or pay stemmed from legitimate factors unrelated to gender.
The jury's nuanced verdict validated key aspects of Rowe's experience, finding Google liable for gender discrimination under New York City law and for retaliation under both city and state statutes. The $1.15 million judgment — including a striking $1 million in punitive damages — sends a powerful message about corporate accountability in workplace discrimination cases. This landmark decision demonstrates that even the most prominent tech companies must answer for unfair treatment, potentially inspiring others facing similar challenges to pursue justice.
Have you witnessed or experienced workplace discrimination? Share your thoughts on this case and what it might mean for equality in the tech industry.
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Okay, so you know how you gave us all that stuff about Okuro and Google, like the complaint and what Google said, back and then like what the jury decided and all that.
Speaker 2:Yeah, the whole shebang.
Speaker 1:Well, basically, we're going to like go deep on that for you See what's really going on, you know.
Speaker 2:Hope you cut through all that legal stuff.
Speaker 1:Exactly Like what was she actually saying. Google did wrong, how did they try to get out of it and, in the end, who won, who lost and all that. You know the big picture.
Speaker 2:So you're looking for the story behind the legalese.
Speaker 1:Totally so. Let's start with Okuro's side of things. What she put in that amended complaint Sheesh, this lady's got a serious resume Like 20 plus years in finance. Big time companies JPMorgan Chase, bank of America, merrill Lynch, even UBS. Yeah, not messing around, and not just working, but like masters in computer science, bachelors in computer engineering, a Fulbright scholar. I mean, come on, this is no ordinary tech person.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's what makes it so interesting. She's at the crossroads of tech and finance. Like serious expertise, not some newbie.
Speaker 1:Exactly, and that's where Google Cloud comes in right. They hired her for their finance stuff and the complaint is like she did everything Product strategy, marketing, you know, figuring out all the crazy regulations, talking to top clients, ceos and all that. Basically, she was Google Cloud's finance guru, speaking at huge events payments, canada, trade, tech, even CBOs Like those are a big deal.
Speaker 2:Oh, and do this. She was advising the Federal Reserve Bank of New York on their fintech stuff, wow. But here's the kicker Her performance reviews always exceeds expectations Makes you wonder, right, if she was so good while the drama.
Speaker 1:So like what went wrong.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's the million-dollar question. So her complaint boils down to this Google discriminated against her because she's a woman, and they did it in like four big ways Hiring her at a lower level than guys who are, you know, no better than her than paying her less than those guys and get this, denying her a promotion she was totally qualified for. And then, when she started complaining about all this, they retaliated, basically demoted her, like trying to shut her up. So each of these is a separate issue, legally speaking.
Speaker 1:Totally so. Let's break them down one by one, starting with the hiring level thing. They brought her in as a level eight director back in March 2017. But she says her experience, her skills, everything it screamed level nine.
Speaker 2:Makes sense.
Speaker 1:She even asked about it like hey, what's up with this level eight and the hiring manager? Well, oh, all the technical directors start at level eight. But guess what? Later on she finds out that's not true at all. Some guys with basically the same background as her. They got hired at level nine, making more money right off the bat.
Speaker 2:Uh-oh.
Speaker 1:That's not a good look Nope.
Speaker 2:And then there's the pay discrimination part. She's saying she was making less than guys doing the same work, sometimes even guys who weren't as experienced or qualified.
Speaker 1:And how does she know that I mean? Salaries are usually confidential.
Speaker 2:Well, you know, word gets around and also it seems like it eventually came out during the whole legal process. It eventually came out during the whole legal process, but anyway, she's claiming this pay gap wasn't because she was less senior or because her work wasn't good enough or any of that, just because she was a woman. So she's alleging it wasn't based on performance or anything like that.
Speaker 1:Right, and it wasn't just salary either. She says her stock options, those equity awards, were smaller than what they promised her and definitely smaller than what some of the guys were getting.
Speaker 2:So she felt cheated on multiple fronts.
Speaker 1:Totally. And she wasn't just sitting there taking it. She went to HR, complained about the level eight thing, how it was affecting her pay and everything.
Speaker 2:Good for her. Speaking up is important.
Speaker 1:Totally OK. Now here comes the promotion drama. There was this open position vice president of financial services, level 10, big deal. Roe thought she was a shoo-in, you know. I mean she had the experience, the skills, plus her hiring manager and even the CTO had hinted that she was on track for that kind of role.
Speaker 2:So she had reason to believe she was in the running.
Speaker 1:Totally. But then this VP she reported to he didn't even really consider her, allegedly Treated her different from the guys, wouldn't include her in important meetings, wouldn't even meet with her regularly, even though she asked.
Speaker 2:Sounds like she was getting sidelined.
Speaker 1:Big time. And then she finds out they're looking at outside candidates for the VP job, people who didn't even work at Google. So she's like, hold up, I want to be considered too. She even tells them hey, that whole level eight thing from the beginning, that's really hurting my chances here.
Speaker 2:So she's connecting the dots, saying that initial decision is impacting her now.
Speaker 1:Exactly and get this. Hr supposedly tells her even if you get the VP job, your level and title won't change. Like what? Then the CTO is all. Yeah, you're the most qualified, but I can't be involved in deciding because I was part of hiring you in the first place.
Speaker 2:What a mess.
Speaker 1:Total mess. She even goes to the CEO of Google Cloud tries to explain everything, but guess what happens? They hire this guy from outside, been at Google for like six months and his background's mostly in compliance and law, not tech, not the kind of client stuff she was doing.
Speaker 2:So a very different skill set.
Speaker 1:Totally different, and she's pointing out, a VP makes way more than a director, so this decision is costing her big time money wise, and it seems the jury agreed, at least in part.
Speaker 2:So they saw something fishy about this hiring decision.
Speaker 1:They did. And to make things even worse, after she officially complains about all this the denied promotion, the discrimination, everything Google comes back with three options for new roles and she's like these are demotions. They're trying to punish me for speaking up. So she sees it as retaliation pure and simple she files this lawsuit, throws the whole book at Google, legally speaking. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, that's the big federal one about sex discrimination and retaliation. Then the Equal Pay Act, also federal, all about, well, equal pay for women.
Speaker 2:Making sure women get paid the same as men for the same work.
Speaker 1:Exactly. And then she also throws in New York's Equal Pay Law and the New York City human rights law, which also cover discrimination and retaliation. She wants money for lost wages, emotional distress, the whole nine yards Plus back pay, front pay, even wants that VP promotion. And of course, she wants Google to pay for her lawyers.
Speaker 2:I mean, it makes sense right.
Speaker 1:Yeah.
Speaker 2:If you're going to sue a giant company like Google, you need good lawyers, and that's expensive.
Speaker 1:No kidding. Okay, so that's her side of the story. Now let's see what Google says in their answer to the complaint. They basically deny everything, right?
Speaker 2:Pretty much Classic legal strategy, you know, make the plaintiff prove their case, banner playbook. But did they admit to anything? A few things. They agreed she worked at Google Cloud. Yeah, new York, that she was a director of engineering. They also admitted she had worked at those other companies she listed. But they were careful to say they were just going by what she said, hadn't verified it themselves. And they agreed Her performance review said exceeds expectations. Oh, and they admitted they have more than four employees.
Speaker 1:Wait, why is that important?
Speaker 2:Well, some employment laws only apply to companies with a certain number of employees. So they were basically saying, yeah, we're big enough for this lawsuit to be valid.
Speaker 1:Ah, got it. But the big stuff, the discrimination, the retaliation, that's where they dug in their heels.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they flat out denied it all. They said her role and qualifications weren't the same as those level nine guys she was comparing herself to. Denied any promises about big stock awards. Said any pay differences were for legit reasons, not because she was a woman.
Speaker 1:Right, and about that VP job they said she wasn't the most qualified and the guy they hired was totally qualified and those other job offers definitely not demotions, according to them.
Speaker 2:So they had an answer for everything.
Speaker 1:Yep, they were ready to fight this thing. But they didn't just deny stuff, they also brought up legal defenses, like some of her claims were too old, past the statute of limitations and even if some things she said were true, they argued it didn't actually break any laws.
Speaker 2:Classic legal maneuvering.
Speaker 1:And then they brought up specific defenses from the Equal Pay Act in New York law saying any differences in pay were because of things like you know merit, seniority, how much work someone did, stuff like that not because of gender.
Speaker 2:So they're saying, hey, even if things look unequal on the surface, there are good reasons for it.
Speaker 1:Exactly, and they also said they were acting in good faith, trying to follow the law, and that she didn't do enough to you know. Minimize her damages, like maybe she could found another job that paid better.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that's called mitigation of damages. Basically, the idea is that if you're suing someone, you can't just sit back and let your losses pile up. You got to try to make things better.
Speaker 1:Makes sense. And lastly, they argued there were limits on how much money she could get, even if she won.
Speaker 2:Right, trying to protect their bottom line Of course.
Speaker 1:So that's Google's defense. A lot of legal stuff, but important to understand their side too.
Speaker 2:Totally Now the big question. So what did the jury think? That's where it gets really interesting.
Speaker 1:Right. So they listened to all the evidence, all the arguments and, on October 20, 2023, they gave their verdict. It wasn't a clean sweep for either side.
Speaker 2:Oh, a mixed bag then.
Speaker 1:Yep. So remember those two guys she said were making more than her Hartow and Breslow.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:Well, for that specific claim under New York State's labor law about equal pay. The jury sided with Google, said they weren't liable.
Speaker 2:Interesting. So for that specific part of the law, Google was in the clear.
Speaker 1:Exactly, but then under the New York City human rights law, the one about gender discrimination, the jury said Google was liable.
Speaker 2:Ah, so they did find discrimination.
Speaker 1:They did, which is a big deal. Right Means they believed Google treated her worse because she was a woman.
Speaker 2:Right, different laws, different standards of proof, maybe different evidence presented.
Speaker 1:Yeah, it gets complicated, but the jury had to sift through it all and decide.
Speaker 2:And what about the retaliation part?
Speaker 1:That's where it gets even more interesting. Under the city's human rights law for the retaliation claim, Google was liable, according to the jury.
Speaker 2:So they believe she was punished for speaking up.
Speaker 1:Yep and then get this for the retaliation claim under New York state's labor law, but specifically the part about equal pay. They also found Google liable there.
Speaker 2:So, even though they didn't find Google liable for unequal pay overall, they did think Google retaliated against her for bringing it up.
Speaker 1:Exactly Like they might not have totally believed her about those specific guys making more, but they did believe Google messed with her for complaining about it.
Speaker 2:A subtle but important distinction.
Speaker 1:Totally OK. Now the money part Damages. The jury awarded her $150,000 for compensatory damages. That's for. You know the emotional distress, the harm she suffered because of what Google did.
Speaker 2:Trying to make up for the pain and suffering.
Speaker 1:Exactly, and then get this a whole million dollars in punitive damages.
Speaker 2:Wow, that's a lot.
Speaker 1:It is. That's not just about making her whole. That's about punishing Google and making sure they don't do this kind of stuff again or that other companies see that and think twice.
Speaker 2:Sending a message loud and clear.
Speaker 1:Totally. But here's something interesting they didn't give her any back pay.
Speaker 2:Oh, so no money to make up for the earnings she lost because of the discrimination.
Speaker 1:Nope, which is weird right, because they did find discrimination and retaliation. Maybe they didn't think those things directly caused her to lose money, or maybe they figured the other damages were enough.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it's hard to say for sure what the jury was thinking, but overall they clearly sided with her in a lot of ways they did.
Speaker 1:So, after all that the judge made it official On October 27, 2023,. Judgment for Okuro against Google LLC. Total amount $1,150,000.
Speaker 2:So that's the $150,000 compensatory plus the million punitive. Big win for her.
Speaker 1:Huge win. So there you have it, the whole story. Okuro sues Google, saying they discriminated against her because she's a woman, paid her less, didn't promote her and retaliated when she complained. Google denies everything. They go to trial the jury. Well, they kind of split the difference.
Speaker 2:Yeah, they didn't buy everything, she said.
Speaker 1:Right Didn't agree with her on that specific equal pay claim under New York state law, but for the broader discrimination claim under the city law and for the retaliation claims both under city and state law, Google was liable and they had to pay her over a million bucks.
Speaker 2:It really shows how complex these cases can be. You got federal law, state law, city law, different standards, different burdens of proof.
Speaker 1:Exactly. It's not always clear cut, and this case really makes you think. You know, how do you prove discrimination? How do you show that someone didn't get a promotion because of their gender, not because of their qualifications, or that they're being paid less for unfair reasons? It's tough.
Speaker 2:Yeah, these are complicated issues, for sure.
Speaker 1:Totally. But even with a win like this, it makes you wonder how much more is out there. How many people are facing this kind of stuff and don't know what to do, or too afraid to speak up.
Speaker 2:It's definitely something to think about.
Speaker 1:It is. And you know, this wasn't just some small company. This was Google, one of the biggest, most powerful companies in the world. If it can happen there, it can happen anywhere. So, yeah, lots to think about.
Speaker 2:Lots to unpack.