Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favored white, Asian employees

New York Post - Mar 18th, 2025

Google has agreed to pay $28 million to settle a class action lawsuit that accused the company of favoring white and Asian employees over others in terms of pay and career advancement. This settlement, which affects at least 6,632 employees in California, received preliminary approval from Judge Charles Adams of the Santa Clara County Superior Court. The lawsuit was led by Ana Cantu on behalf of various racial minority groups at Google, contending that despite exemplary performance, these groups were denied promotions and pay increases. Google's spokesperson reiterated the company's stance of fair treatment for all employees, despite settling the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged that Google's practices violated the California Equal Pay Act, and the settlement excludes black employees from the proposed class after agreement from Cantu's lawyers. The net proceeds from the settlement, after legal fees and other costs, amount to $20.4 million. This case highlights ongoing concerns about workplace equality and pay equity in major tech firms. The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for September 11. This story underscores the importance of continued vigilance and advocacy to ensure fair workplace practices across all industries.

Google Class Action Lawsuit Alphabet Inc. Ana Cantu Racial Bias Equal Pay Act California Superior Court

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The news story provides a clear and timely account of a significant legal settlement involving Google, touching on important issues of workplace equality and corporate ethics. It effectively presents the main facts and claims, with input from a Google spokesperson and the judge overseeing the case. However, the article could benefit from more diverse perspectives and detailed evidence to enhance its balance and source quality. The lack of transparency in explaining the methodology behind the claims and the exclusion of certain employee groups limits the depth of the analysis. Overall, the article succeeds in engaging readers and contributing to public discourse on a relevant and controversial topic, but it could have been strengthened by providing a more comprehensive view of the issue.

Accuracy

The article largely maintains factual accuracy by clearly stating the settlement amount ($28 million) and the involved parties, such as Google and the class of employees represented by Ana Cantu. The details about the preliminary approval by Judge Charles Adams and the exclusion of Black employees from the class are precise and verifiable. However, the article could have benefited from more detailed evidence supporting the allegations, such as specific instances or data illustrating the alleged pay disparities. The claim that Google's actions violated the California Equal Pay Act is presented without direct evidence or legal analysis, which could help in evaluating the accuracy of these allegations.

Balance

The article presents both sides of the story, including Google's denial of the allegations and the perspective of Ana Cantu, who led the lawsuit. However, the article could have been more balanced by including perspectives from other affected employees or experts in employment law to provide a broader view of the issue. The omission of these viewpoints may lead to an incomplete understanding of the complexities involved in such lawsuits and the broader implications for employment practices at large corporations.

Clarity

The article is well-structured, with a clear presentation of the main facts and claims. The language is straightforward and free of jargon, making it accessible to a general audience. The article effectively summarizes the key points without overwhelming the reader with unnecessary details. However, the inclusion of additional context about the broader implications of the lawsuit and the legal framework governing pay equity could have further enhanced clarity.

Source quality

The article cites a Google spokesperson and the judge involved in the case, which lends credibility to the information presented. However, the reliance on a single plaintiff's perspective (Ana Cantu) without corroborating evidence from other sources or independent verification limits the depth of the reporting. Including insights from legal experts or industry analysts could have enhanced the article's reliability and provided readers with a more comprehensive understanding of the case's implications.

Transparency

The article is transparent in disclosing the basic facts of the case, such as the parties involved, the settlement amount, and the timeline. However, it lacks transparency in explaining the methodology behind the claims of pay disparity and the criteria used to determine the class of affected employees. Additionally, the article does not discuss any potential conflicts of interest, such as the motivations behind Google's decision to settle or the strategic considerations for excluding Black employees from the class.