Did Apple Underpay 12,000 Women?
A new class action lawsuit claims the tech giant maintained a practice of paying its female employees less than male employees for substantially similar work.
ALSO IN THIS POST…
Go and see Suffs, the musical
Latest on WOMEN MONEY POWER
One day at work, Justina Jong happened to stumble across a W-2, the form used in the U.S. to summarize earnings information for the purposes of filing a tax return. It wasn’t hers. Someone had accidentally left it in a printer at the office.
Jong is a customer and technical training instructor on Apple’s developer relations and app review team. She wasn’t snooping. It was just there. And when she noticed what it was, and read the numbers printed on it, it made her feel terrible.
It belonged to one of her male colleagues, a man who has the same job as she does. “I noticed that he was being paid almost $10,000 more than me, even though we performed substantially similar work,” Jong said, according to a class action pay discrimination law suit launched against Apple last week.
It is, one might argue, a tale as old as time.
Indeed, it sometimes seems like everyone—from Lilly Ledbetter to your next door neighbor, to me, (and maybe even you?)—has had some version of the experience that Jong recounts here. And yet it’s a story that’s still showing no sign of running out of steam: a large company is being accused of systemically discriminating on the basis of gender. A David-versus-Goliath affair with sequels and prequels almost too numerous to count.
In this particular case, the details are as follows: three major law firms have filed a suit on behalf of two women, who are representing more than 12,000 current and former female Apple employees, in San Francisco’s Superior Court. It claims that the tech giant violated California’s Equal Pay Act and Fair Employment and Housing Act by systematically paying women lower wages than men who perform substantially similar work.
It also claims that the tech company “knows or should have known about these substantial pay disparities and has yet to take any action to remedy the inequality.”
Cases like this can sometimes feel a little samey; a bit like a broken record. But all of them have their own unique markers and what I find particularly interesting about this case is that it explicitly addresses the issue of how pay inequality can be compounded over time.
The women claim that before the autumn of 2017, Apple would explicit ask potential employees in job interviews for prior pay information. There was nothing technically wrong with that. In January 2018, however, that practice became unlawful. But, according to the women, that didn’t stop Apple and it “continued to inquire about prior pay under the guise of candidates’ pay expectations.”
“Apple used this information to set starting salaries, resulting in lower pay rates for women than for men who perform substantially similar work,” according to the suit.
“Apple has systematically and willfully paid women in California lower compensation than men with similar education and experience by tracking them into lower starting salaries,” said Joseph Sellers, partner at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, one of the firms representing the women. “Even if Apple no longer asks for specific prior pay data, asking them for pay expectations is basically the same thing,” he added.
Eve Cervantez, a partner at Altshuler Berzon, another of the firms acting on behalf of the women, described the system that Apple was purportedly using as a “no-win situation” for women working there. “Once women are hired into a lower pay range at Apple, subsequent pay raises or any bonuses are tracked accordingly, meaning they don’t correct the gender pay gap,” she said. “Instead, they perpetuate and widen the gap because raises and bonuses are based on a percentage of the employee’s base salary.”
To me, this is an apt reminder of two things. First, that inequality in a workplace can be much more obscure, entrenched and systemic than it might first appear. And second, that the legislative steps we’ve collectively taken to stamp out discriminatory practices, like the ones Apple’s being accused of, may well be inadequate.
Sure, companies—at least in the state of California—may no longer be legally allowed to ask about salary expectations when interviewing, but that doesn’t mean the hangover from decades of being able to do so isn’t still lingering. It also doesn’t mean—as Joseph Sellers mentioned—that hiring managers can’t still ask questions that work as a sort of proxy for that inquiry.
I’m no legal expert, but based on what we know about cases like this that have been brought in the past, a settlement may well be the most likely outcome. The firms representing the Apple employees in this case—Cohen Milstein, Altshuler Berzon and Outten & Golden—have a track record of brokering some of the most notable settlements in discrimination cases in recent years, including last year’s $215 million deal with Goldman Sachs and a $175 million settlement with Sterling Jewelers in 2022.
Regardless of what happens, though, the women who have decided to fight back should be commended. It takes bravery and grit to speak out against one of the world’s largest companies.
Apple, for it’s part released a statement when the news of the lawsuit broke. "Since 2017, Apple has achieved and maintained gender pay equity and every year we partner with an independent third-party expert to examine each team member’s total compensation and make adjustments, where necessary, to ensure that we maintain pay equity," it said, according to various news outlets.
Keep Marching
From the bad and ugly, to the good.
Last week I finally had the opportunity to go and see Suffs, the musical about the American suffrage movement.
Run, don’t walk, as they say.
I’m not a huge fan of Broadway. I’m also just not very good these days at sitting still for long periods of time in a tightly packed theatre (I know, I know, ok boomer). But I was utterly blown away by the smart, funny, absorbing way in which the indomitable Shaina Taub brought the story of the passage of the 19th Amendment to life. What I was particularly impressed by was the way in which she did so while unapologetically showcasing the troubled infighting and outright racism that marred the movement. Even the most brilliant feminists, it turns out, are flawed.
Today, I’ve been reading over the lyrics: an exquisite cocktail of wicked wit and dirty sarcasm, mixed with rallying cries that are as fit for a women’s march in 1913 as they are appropriate for a pro-choice protest in 2024.
Here’s a sample from the finale:
I won’t live to see the future that I fight for
Maybe no one gets to reach that perfect day
If the work is never over
Then how do you keep marching anyway?
Do you carry your banner as far as you can?
Rewriting the world with your imperfect pen?
Til the next stubborn girl picks it up in
A picket line over and over again?
And you join in the chorus of centuries chanting to her
The path will be twisted and risky and slow
But keep marching, keep marching
Will you fail or prevail, well, you may never know
But keep marching, keep marching
‘Cause your ancestors are all the proof you need
That progress is possible, not guaranteed
It will only be made if we keep marching,
Keep marching on
Keep marching on, keep marching on.
I loved what Bess Kalb had to say about Suffs and relate to pretty much all of her thoughts and questions. You can subscribe to her Grudge Report here.
WOMEN MONEY POWER: The Book
On all things book, a few little accomplishments worthy of celebration last week.
First, Amazon named WOMEN MONEY POWER one of the Best Books of the Year So Far 2024. In the Business and Leadership category I’m in esteemed company. Cal Newport, Scott Galloway, Joseph Stiglitz (to whom I once sang happy birthday…but that’s a story for another day) and Gary Vaynerchuk also made the list.
Elsewhere, Catalyst, the workplaces consulting group, published a brilliant review of the book. Here’s an excerpt:
“Cox frames the odyssey through vignettes and vibrant portraits of women changemakers, from household names like equal pay advocate Lilly Ledbetter to influential figures who never quite got their due, such as lawyer and activist Pauli Murray. Readers also meet lesser-known women who broke from the status quo, including Mae Burkett Krier, who joined the millions of “Rosie the Riveter” women entering the labor force to support the US economy during World War II.
“Their stories shine a light on the courage, grit, and persistence required to stand up to the status quo. But for every incredible achievement, Cox notes, a major setback was not far behind.”
You can read the full review here.
And finally, as ever, one final, shameless request. If you’ve read the book or listened to the audiobook, I would massively appreciate it if you could take just thirty seconds to post a review or rate it on Amazon using this link. If Goodreads is your jam, that’s just as great, and you can leave a review or rating here. Thank you so much for your support!
Always,
Josie
So proud of the momentum you’re getting with the book. Of course, I expected nothing less. I enjoyed listening to it in April! Happy summer!