Google to pay $50M to settle black employees’ lawsuit alleging ‘racially biased corporate culture’

New York Post - May 9th, 2025

Google has agreed to a $50 million settlement to resolve a lawsuit alleging systemic racial bias against black employees within the company. This preliminary settlement, which covers more than 4,000 employees in California and New York, was filed in the federal court in Oakland, California, and awaits a judge's approval. The lawsuit, initiated by plaintiff April Curley and others, accused Google of fostering a racially biased corporate culture that relegated black employees to lower-level positions, paid them less, and hindered their career advancement. The complaint highlighted that black employees made up only 4.4% of Google's workforce and a mere 3% of its leadership in 2021. Google, while denying any wrongdoing, has agreed to settle, with the plaintiffs' lawyers potentially receiving up to $12.5 million of the settlement fund in fees.

This case underscores ongoing concerns about racial discrimination in major tech companies and reflects broader societal issues regarding diversity and inclusion in the workplace. The settlement follows an investigation by the California Civil Rights Department into Google's practices concerning black female employees. Although Google has not commented further, the case highlights the necessity for corporations to critically evaluate their employment practices and foster inclusive environments. The dismissal of related claims concerning job applicants suggests that some allegations may have been mitigated by Google's defense and evidence presented during the case. This settlement could potentially influence how other companies address similar allegations and the measures they implement to ensure equitable treatment of all employees.

Discrimination Settlement Google Alphabet Racial Bias California Civil Rights Department April Curley

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.0

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the $50 million settlement between Google and its Black employees, accused of systemic racial bias. It accurately reports the main claims and offers a balanced perspective by presenting both the plaintiffs' allegations and Google's denial of wrongdoing. The story is timely and relevant, addressing significant public interest topics such as corporate ethics and racial equality. While the article is clear and engaging, it could benefit from more direct quotes and diverse perspectives to enhance source quality and balance. Overall, the piece effectively informs readers about a critical issue in the tech industry, with the potential to influence public discourse and corporate practices.

Accuracy

The news story is largely accurate, with most claims aligning well with available sources. The reported $50 million settlement and the involvement of over 4,000 employees in California and New York are well-supported by external reports. The article accurately describes the plaintiffs' allegations, such as systemic racial bias and underrepresentation of Black employees in leadership roles, which are consistent with the cited sources. However, certain claims, like the specific experiences of April Curley and the use of 'Googleyness' as a racial dog whistle, require further verification through internal documents or direct testimonies. Overall, the story provides a truthful account of the settlement while acknowledging Google's denial of wrongdoing.

Balance

The article presents the perspectives of both the plaintiffs and Google, offering a balanced view of the situation. It details the allegations of racial bias from the plaintiffs' side and Google's response denying any wrongdoing. However, the story could be enhanced by including more detailed statements from Google or third-party experts to provide a broader range of viewpoints. While it does not overtly favor one side, the inclusion of more diverse perspectives could improve the balance.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and clearly written, making it easy for readers to follow the sequence of events and understand the key points. The language is straightforward and neutral, avoiding jargon or complex terminology. The logical flow from the lawsuit's background to the settlement details enhances comprehension, though a more detailed breakdown of the legal terms could benefit readers unfamiliar with legal proceedings.

Source quality

The article relies on credible sources, such as court documents and statements from involved parties, which enhances its reliability. However, it lacks direct quotes from primary sources like Google representatives or the plaintiffs' lawyers, which would strengthen the credibility further. The reliance on secondary sources without direct attribution to primary sources slightly diminishes the overall source quality.

Transparency

The story provides a clear account of the legal proceedings and the settlement's terms, but it lacks detailed disclosure of how the information was obtained. There is no mention of the methodology used to gather data or any potential conflicts of interest. Greater transparency regarding the sources of information and the context of the allegations would improve the article's transparency.