January 23, 2025
Apple must face a potential class action alleging that Apple had a policy of paying men higher salaries than women for similar work.
On Tuesday, California Superior Court Judge Ethan P. Schulman filed an order that largely denies Apple’s motions to strike the class allegations and suspend several class claims. This allows what one lawyer representing women suing, Joseph Sellers, said was “a very important case that impacts thousands of current and former female Apple employees.”
Perhaps most significantly, Apple tried and failed to argue that pay disparities for individual female workers suing were “justified” and that their circumstances were not common to the 12,000 female employees who could be owed backpay if the class action is certified and Apple loses.
But Schulman agreed with employees suing that there was a “reasonable possibility” that thousands of women in Apple’s California-based engineering, AppleCare, and marketing divisions experienced similar unequal pay and discrimination as alleged in the complaint.
Schulman said that workers suing sufficiently alleged that Apple “has implemented an unlawful wage rate scheme that is generally applicable” to the class and results in Apple underpaying female workers, compared to their male counterparts.
According to workers suing, Apple has three policies that seemingly perpetuate and widen gender pay gaps. Allegedly, Apple relies upon “prior pay and pay expectations to set starting salaries,” uses performance evaluations that “reward” men and “penalize” women “for the same behaviors,” and uses “talent” reviews to pay men more than women “with similar levels of talent.”
Schulman warned that accepting Apple’s argument that evidence of pay disparity to particular employees did not reflect a common pattern or policy would seemingly “mean that a class action could never be certified” under California’s Equal Pay Act.
“Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Defendant’s salary decisions are made in a centralized location pursuant to an employment policy which appears facially neutral but ‘has had the effect of perpetuating past pay disparities and paying women less than men performing substantially similar work,'” Schulman wrote.
. . .
The plaintiffs in this case are represented by Outten & Golden, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Altshuler Berzon. These law firms are known for brokering settlements with Goldman Sachs and Sterling Jewelers.
Read Apple Must Face Suit Over Alleged Policy of Underpaying Female Workers.