throbber
Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Ben Crump (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC
`633 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest
`Floor 2
`Washington D.C. 20004
`(800) 713-1222
`Telephone:
`
`Suzanne E. Bish (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`George Robot (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`Daniel Lewin (pro hac vice application forthcoming)
`STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
`303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone:
`(312) 431-0888
`sbish@sfltd.com
`
`Sam Sani (SBN 273993)
`SANI LAW, APC
`15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405
`Encino, CA 91436
`Telephone:
`(310) 935-0405
`Facsimile:
`(310) 935-0409
`ssani@sanilawfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff April Curley and the Putative Class
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`APRIL CURLEY, individually and behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO:
`COMPLAINT
`Class Action
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`COMPLAINT
`CLASS ACTION
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`Plaintiff April Curley (“Curley”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
`
`situated, by and through her attorneys, Ben Crump Law, PLLC, Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., and
`
`Sani Law, APC, hereby files this Complaint against Defendant Google, LLC (“Defendant” or
`
`“Google”) and in support states as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Google famously adopted “don’t be evil” as a core value in its early days. Yet as it
`
`grew into one of the world’s largest corporate behemoths, Google practiced one of this nation’s
`
`oldest evils—race discrimination.
`
`2.
`
`Pursuant to its strong, racially biased corporate culture, Google is engaged in a
`
`pattern and practice of race discrimination against its African American and Black employees.
`
`Google’s centralized leadership, which is nearly devoid of Black representation, holds biased and
`
`stereotypical views about the abilities and potential of Black professionals. As a result, and
`
`pursuant to company-wide discriminatory policies and practices, Google hires few Black
`
`employees and steers those few Black employees into lower-level roles, pays them less, and
`
`denies them advancement and leadership roles because of their race. Black Google employees
`
`face a hostile work environment and suffer retaliation if they dare to challenge or oppose the
`
`company’s discriminatory practices. As a result, Black employees at Google earn and advance
`
`less than non-Black employees and suffer higher rates of attrition.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff was harmed by Google’s racially hostile work environment and company-
`
`wide discriminatory practices. Due to its abysmal representation of Black professionals since its
`
`founding and growing public awareness of its lack of commitment to genuine diversity and
`
`inclusion, Google hired Plaintiff in 2014 to expand its outreach to Black college students. Like
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`other Black professionals, Google placed Plaintiff in a lower job grade and title than her work and
`
`responsibilities warranted and denied her pay and promotion opportunities because of her race.
`
`Plaintiff and other Black professionals were often pigeon-holed into dead-end jobs—with less
`
`visibility, lower pay, and no advancement opportunities. As Plaintiff’s success in recruiting
`
`talented, well-qualified Black candidates grew, she discovered that Google was not genuinely
`
`interested in actual diversity and equal employment opportunities but wanted only to burnish its
`
`public image for marketing purposes. Google wanted Plaintiff, as an African American woman,
`
`to quietly put on a good face for the company and toe the company line. But Plaintiff was
`
`unwilling to be used as a mere marketing ploy. Plaintiff was a champion for Black employees and
`
`Black students; she vocally opposed and called for reform of the barriers and double standards
`
`Google imposed on Black employees and applicants. In response to her advocacy for herself and
`
`other Black employees subjected to Google’s discriminatory practices, Google unlawfully
`
`marginalized, undermined, and ultimately terminated Plaintiff because of her race and her
`
`protected activity.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a class of current and former
`
`Black Google employees in order to hold Google accountable for its systemic race discrimination,
`
`to redress Google’s discrimination against Black professionals across the country, and to achieve
`
`necessary reforms and injunctive relief to end Google’s discriminatory employment practices and
`
`provide equal opportunities for all Google employees.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff’s claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and this Court has jurisdiction
`
`over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1343. This Court has supplemental
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they arise out of the
`
`same nucleus of operative facts.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(b) because Google resides and maintains its principal place of business and headquarters
`
`in this District and the practices challenged by this lawsuit were issued in this District. Venue is
`
`proper in the San Jose Division of the Northern District of California because a substantial part of
`
`the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the county of Santa Clara.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Google, LLC is one of the largest companies in the world. Google develops and
`
`sells technology products and services. Google services generated over $168 billion in revenue in
`
`2020. Google was originally incorporated as Google Inc. but in a 2015 corporate restructuring
`
`converted to an LLC. Google is now a wholly owned subsidiary of XXVI Holdings, Inc., which is
`
`incorporated in Delaware with a principal place of business in Mountain View, California.
`
`Google’s publicly traded ultimate parent company, Alphabet Inc., has a market capitalization of
`
`over $1.7 trillion as of this filing, placing it third among the most valuable companies in America
`
`and fourth globally.
`
`8.
`
`Google maintains its corporate headquarters at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
`
`Mountain View, California 94043. Google employs over 21,000 employees at its corporate
`
`headquarters, and tens of thousands of employees across the United States.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff April Curley is an African American woman and was employed by
`
`Google as a University Programs Specialist in New York City, New York from 2014 until she
`
`was unlawfully terminated in September 2020. Throughout her employment, Curley worked
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`diligently and performed at a high level for Google. Nonetheless, pursuant to Defendant’s
`
`nationwide pattern or practice or race discrimination, Google paid Curley lower wages and denied
`
`her advancement opportunities because of her race, and subjected her to a hostile work
`
`environment and retaliation.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Google Systematically Discriminates Against Black Employees
`
`Google is engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of intentional race
`
`10.
`
`discrimination and retaliation and maintains employment policies and practices that have a
`
`disparate impact against Black employees throughout the United States.
`
`11.
`
`Google’s overwhelmingly non-Black executives hold racially biased, stereotypical,
`
`and harmful views of Black employees. Indeed, the California Department of Fair Employment
`
`and Housing is currently investigating Google for its treatment of Black female employees.1
`
`12.
`
`Google’s racially biased corporate culture and discriminatory practices extend far
`
`beyond its California headquarters. Pursuant to discriminatory company-wide policies and
`
`practices, Google favors white men and hires few Black employees and assigns the few Black
`
`employees it hires into lower-paying, lower-prestige roles with fewer opportunities for
`
`advancement than Google’s non-Black employees.
`
`13. When Google hired Plaintiff in 2014, for instance, only 628 of its over 32,000
`
`employees—1.9%—identified as Black or African American. At that time, Google had only one
`
`Black or African American top-level executive out of 25. Over the next two years Google added 5
`
`White top-level executives, but the African American count remained at one. By 2020, despite
`
`
`1 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/california-investigates-googles-treatment-black-women-
`workers-rcna9154
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`the heroic and uphill efforts of people like Plaintiff, the overall demographics had scarcely
`
`budged. Under intense public scrutiny to address its abysmal underrepresentation of African
`
`Americans in the wake of the murder of George Floyd and ensuing national racial reckoning,
`
`Google made concerted, public-relations–driven efforts to recruit Black employees. As of 2021,
`
`Google’s workforce inched up to a dismal 4.4% “Black+.”2 This seeming improvement still pales
`
`by comparison to the 2021 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data, which reflects a 9.1% Black or
`
`African American representation within Google’s industry classification.3 But Google steers and
`
`traps its “Black+” hires into lower-paying and lower-prestige roles. Google’s awful
`
`underrepresentation is even worse in leadership and prestigious technical roles. For instance, in
`
`2021, Google’s leadership ranks were only 3% Black and its prestigious tech workforce was only
`
`2.9% Black.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to its racially biased corporate culture, Google segregates its workforce
`
`and workplaces, which are permeated by a racially hostile work environment. As just one
`
`illustration, Black professionals and visitors at Google’s main California campus headquarters
`
`were routinely harassed and targeted based on their race, often being questioned by security or
`
`asked to show identification. Similarly, in a Google intranet document, Google employees of
`
`color shared thousands of “microaggressions” and acts of harassment they faced on a daily basis
`
`at Google offices, including being asked to serve their white colleagues or treated as outsiders
`
`who did not belong other than in a service or administrative capacity.
`
`
`2 Google’s self-reporting category “Black+” includes employees who identify as more than one race, one of which is
`Black.
`3 https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Google employs company-wide discriminatory pay, level and job assignment, and
`
`advancement policies and practices that systematically underpay, delay, and deny advancement to
`
`Black employees in a number of ways.
`
`16.
`
`Google assigns “levels” to all positions across the country. For example, Level 2 is
`
`the lowest level Google assigns to permanent, full-time employees, typically reserved for hires
`
`straight of out college. Level 3 corresponds to entry-level work, typically for recent college
`
`graduates. Google considers all employees at the same level—regardless of location in the United
`
`States—to perform substantially equal or substantially similar work. Each level is to correspond
`
`to a standardized base salary range, among other things. Google assigns Black employees to
`
`lower levels than their experience and responsibilities warrant and pays Black employees less for
`
`performing the same level of work as non-Black employees.
`
`17.
`
`Google’s compensation policies and practices also result in racial pay disparities
`
`within levels. For example, Google’s pay practices regarding bonuses and stock options harm
`
`Black employees. Among other things, Google awards bonuses and stock options to its
`
`employees with progressively increasing bonus targets depending on level. At Level 3, for
`
`instance, Google’s centralized, nationwide policy establishes a bonus target of 15% of base
`
`compensation. At Level 4, the bonus target increases to 20% of the already-higher base
`
`compensation. Thus, by steering Black employees into lower levels and paying them less than
`
`non-Black employees within level, Google intentionally uses policies that compound any pay
`
`disparity between Black and non-Black employees throughout their careers. These disparities
`
`only worsen because Google rarely offers its Black employees opportunities for advancement.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Google’s centralized policies extend discretion to its overwhelmingly non-Black
`
`managers to set and modify compensation. These managers thus have a free hand to set
`
`discriminatory pay and use compensation, including bonus cuts, as a tool to further reduce the pay
`
`of Black employees and as a sword to retaliate against those who challenge Google’s
`
`discriminatory practices.
`
`19.
`
`Following a nationwide pattern or practice of discrimination, Google places Black
`
`hires into lower-level positions than similarly situated non-Black hires. Within level, Google pays
`
`Black employees less within the base salary range than similarly situated non-Black employees.
`
`And Google steers Black hires into roles that lack opportunities for advancement or leadership.
`
`20.
`
`By assigning Black employees to lower-level positions, compensating them less
`
`within levels than similarly situated non-Black employees, and denying Black employees
`
`advancement opportunities into higher levels, under Google’s centralized, nationwide policies,
`
`Black employees are paid substantially less than similarly situated non-Black employees. And
`
`under Google’s cumulative advantage policies, especially given that Black employees lack
`
`opportunities for advancement, the disparity grows as time passes.
`
`21. Moreover, because of the racially discriminatory and hostile environment at
`
`Google, as well as the underpayment and denial of advancement, Black employees suffer above-
`
`average attrition rates at Google.
`
`22.
`
`Complicit in Google’s pattern or practice of race discrimination and retaliation is
`
`its human resources group, which is ineffective at resolving complaints of discrimination,
`
`harassment, and retaliation. Black employees recognize the futility of lodging internal complaints.
`
`The few brave enough to come forward suffer retaliation. Google’s human resources department
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`and legal department defend discriminators, harassers, and retaliators, and do not take adequate
`
`steps to prevent Google from retaliating against Black employees who lodge complaints.
`
`23.
`
`Google does not foster an environment where Black employees feel free to
`
`complain of discrimination or harassment. Instead, Black employees often feel intimidated from
`
`coming forward and suffer retaliation.
`
`24.
`
`Thus, during Plaintiff’s employment, before and afterwards, Google engaged in a
`
`pattern or practice of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct toward its Black employees
`
`throughout the United States including, but not limited to the following practices:
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Google employs discriminatory occupational segregation and race steering
`policies and practices;
`Google employs discriminatory pay policies and practices, including
`assigning Black employees to positions at lower “levels” and to lower
`paying jobs than it assigns non-Black employees;
`Google employs discriminatory advancement policies and practices,
`including placing Black employees into positions without advancement
`opportunities and denying or delaying advancement opportunities to Black
`employees;
`Google fails to credit its Black employees for their experience on the same
`basis as non-Black employees and fails to recognize Black employees for
`timely promotions, pay adjustments, and title changes on the same basis as
`non-Black employees;
`
`Google systematically pays its Black employees lower wages and/or denies
`them opportunities to increase their earnings;
`
`Google takes adverse actions against its Black employees, such as
`unwarranted performance management actions, reduction in job
`responsibilities, demotions, transfers, constructive discharges, reduction in
`pay, and discharges on account of their race and/or their rejection of or
`unwillingness to tolerate a racially discriminatory or hostile work
`environment;
`
`Google relies on race and negative stereotypes about the abilities and
`potential of Black employees in making employment decisions;
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`Google denies Black employees important resources, grooming,
`managerial and administrative support, special project work, training, and
`business opportunities because of race;
`
`Google humiliates, intimidates, harasses, and demeans its Black employees
`and otherwise creates a hostile and offensive work environment;
`Google takes adverse actions against its Black employees who report,
`reject, oppose, or are otherwise unwilling to tolerate discrimination or
`racially hostile work environments;
`
`Google refuses to undergo impartial, thorough investigations or take
`meaningful corrective action against co-workers and managers who engage
`in racial harassment and racial discrimination.
`
`Google’s policies and practices demonstrate that it fundamentally devalues equal
`
`
`
`25.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`employment opportunity. Google, for instance, engages in similar discrimination against other
`
`protected classes. A court certified a class of over 10,000 female California Google employees
`
`paid less than men because Google “(a) assign[s] women to lower ‘Levels’ (i.e. salary bands) than
`
`it assigns men; (b) assign[s] women to jobs that do not compensate as highly as those populated
`
`largely by men; (c) promot[es] women more slowly and at lower rates than it promotes men; and
`
`(d) pay[s] women less than it pays men performing similar work.” (Ellis v. Google, No. CGC-17-
`
`561299 (Superior Ct. of S.F. Cnty.), First Amended Complaint, ¶ 3.) One of the class
`
`representatives alleges, consistent with Plaintiff’s experience, that she was “placed . . . into Level
`
`3, even though she had four years of directly relevant work experience.” (Id. ¶ 59.)
`
`26.
`
`The practices described above are ongoing and constitute a continuing violation of
`
`the civil rights laws.
`
`27.
`
`The racially discriminatory policies and practices at Google are uniform and
`
`national in scope. Class members are relying on Plaintiff and this lawsuit to protect their rights.
`
`Plaintiff Was Subjected to and Harmed by Defendant’s Unlawful Conduct
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`28.
`
`April Curley, like other class members, was subjected to a hostile work
`
`environment and harmed by Google’s racially discriminatory practices throughout her tenure.
`
`When she complained, sought to change these practices, and advocated for others, she suffered
`
`retaliation.
`
`29.
`
`Curley worked as a People Programs Specialist I, also known as a University
`
`Programs Specialist, from 2014 until she was unlawfully terminated in 2020.
`
`30.
`
`Because of Google’s abysmal underrepresentation of Black employees, Google
`
`recruited Curley to design and scale a program of outreach to Historically Black Colleges and
`
`Universities and to recruit Black students. When Google hired Curley, she had been successfully
`
`performing a similar role at Teach for America for three years, and held a Master’s degree along
`
`with an additional two years of work experience. Yet Google “under-leveled” Curley. At the time
`
`Google hired her, her Master’s degree and five years of professional experience should have
`
`corresponded to Level 5, yet Google assigned her to only Level 3—entry level post-bachelor’s
`
`degree—and never promoted her or gave her merit pay increases. Indeed, Google never assigned
`
`Curley to the higher level she deserved despite her stellar qualifications and performance.
`
`31.
`
`Curley’s talent, hard work, and experience paid off—she established a strong
`
`pipeline of talented Black engineering candidates, providing Google access to a wealth of
`
`previously untapped technical expertise and leadership potential. Thanks to Curley’s efforts,
`
`Google started to see an increase in its Black technical hiring. Curley enjoyed the recognition of
`
`her peers and the acclaim of the participants in the campus experiences she created.
`
`32.
`
`In her role, Curley discovered that Google was biased against and reluctant to hire
`
`Black talent, subjecting Black students to more stringent hiring practices than non-Black
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`candidates. Plaintiff vocally opposed Google’s systemic discrimination, including the following
`
`discriminatory employment practices, among others:
`
`a.
`
`Google viewed Black candidates through harmful racial stereotypes and
`hiring managers deemed Black candidates not “googly” enough, a plain
`dog whistle for race discrimination;
`Google interviewers “hazed” and undermined Black candidates, regularly
`asking level-inappropriate questions of Black candidates to intentionally
`tank their interview scores.
`
`Google hired Black candidates into lower-paying and lower-leveled roles,
`with less advancement potential, based on their race and racial stereotypes.
`
`Curley and her Black female colleagues advocated to break down these barriers.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`Google was openly hostile to this advocacy for equal employment opportunities, and made clear
`
`to Curley that she was supposed to be only window dressing. Google expected Curley and her
`
`Black colleagues to execute the majority-white management’s marketing-focused Black
`
`recruitment strategies and never raise any concerns while doing so. Curley and her teammates’
`
`advocacy quickly earned them a reputation within Google’s discriminatory management culture
`
`as “difficult,” “negative,” and “hard to work with.”
`
`34.
`
`Because Google intended Curley to be a marketing ploy rather than a real
`
`champion for Black opportunity and change, Google sought at every turn to marginalize her and
`
`prevent her from advocating for herself and other Black Google employees and applicants.
`
`Google hired a revolving door of managers to supervise Curley, many of whom harbored animus
`
`toward Black employees and especially Black women. Google selected managers who, among
`
`other things:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Frequently mistook Curley and her two Black female colleagues for each
`other and called them by each other’s names;
`
`Called Curley and her Black female colleagues “the girls” or demeaning
`labels other than their names;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`e.
`
`f.
`
`
`Refused to acknowledge or let Curley and her Black female colleagues
`speak in or present during important meetings;
`
`Described Curley and her Black female peers’ work as “low-level”;
`
`Created work environments so hostile that Curley’s female peers were
`forced to leave the company, or suffered emotional distress;
`
`Ignored and devalued Curley and her Black female peers’ expertise at their
`jobs and with Black students, even though the managers lacked the same
`level of success.
`
`Refused to support or nominate Curley or her Black female colleagues for
`pay and advancement opportunities;
`
`Discouraged Curley and her Black female peers from challenging Google’s
`racially discriminatory practices against Black students;
`
`Demeaned and sexualized Curley as a Black woman, including by asking
`her which colleagues she wanted to sleep with.
`
`Curley sought help and reform and reported this conduct and several managers to
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`35.
`
`Google’s HR department and upper management. These complaints were ignored, and worse,
`
`resulted in increased discrimination and harassment. Google conducted no meaningful
`
`investigations and took no corrective actions. To the contrary, Google repeatedly promoted
`
`managers who discriminated, retaliated, and created a hostile work environment.
`
`36.
`
`Among Curley’s nine supervisors, only one was a Black woman. This manager
`
`was also the only one to put Curley up for a level increase, which would have adjusted Curley’s
`
`pay and job level to account for the higher-level work she was already performing. Curley’s pay
`
`adjustment was approved, yet when the time came for her level increase to be announced, Google
`
`falsely claimed it lacked the budget to adjust her pay. Curley was never considered for
`
`advancement opportunities again. Her sole African American female manager lasted less than two
`
`years in the role.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Curley later learned that a high-level white manager had blocked her pay and level
`
`increase. Although that manager worked on the same floor as Curley and the two enjoyed a
`
`cordial relationship, she admitted to Curley that she considered her “intimidating,”
`
`“unwelcoming,” and—a stereotype Black women in America are all too familiar with—“angry.”
`
`She refused to consider Curley for any advancement opportunities because of her race and reports
`
`of discrimination at Google.
`
`38.
`
`Throughout late 2019, Google repeatedly reprimanded Curley and cut her annual
`
`compensation for speaking up in team meetings and challenging internal practices.
`
`39.
`
`Curley again sought help and filed an HR complaint in January 2020. Google
`
`conducted no investigation and instead the complaint doomed Curley’s career at Google.
`
`40.
`
`In spring of 2020, a group of the dozen or so Black and Latinx employees within
`
`University Programs, including Curley, assembled to address the many issues facing people of
`
`color at Google, including but not limited to lack of advancement opportunities, exclusion from
`
`leadership, underpayment, underleveling, and high attrition. The group met several times and
`
`developed a list of desired reforms.
`
`41.
`
`In plain retaliation for Curley’s leadership role in this advocacy group, in June
`
`2020, Google placed her on an informal performance improvement plan. Despite Curley’s strong
`
`performance during the informal PIP, in early August 2020, Google intensified its retaliation,
`
`warning Curley to either accept severance immediately or be placed on a formal performance
`
`improvement plan, where it was clear that Google would terminate her employment at the end of
`
`the plan. Curley chose to fight for her job and began a formal 30-day performance improvement
`
`plan that was slated to end on September 17, 2020.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`42. While on the PIP, Curley advised Google she was preparing a detailed report about
`
`its racial bias in hiring practices. In response, Google ended Curley’s PIP early and unlawfully
`
`terminated her employment on September 11, 2020, freezing out her access to the document and
`
`her ability to complete and submit her report documenting the discriminatory practices.
`
`43.
`
`As a result of Google’s unlawful conduct, Curley, like other class members, has
`
`lost wages, promotional opportunities, and other benefits, and suffered irreparable harm to her
`
`career, emotional distress, and other nonpecuniary losses. Google’s actions have caused and
`
`continue to cause Plaintiff substantial losses in earnings and other employment benefits, in an
`
`amount to be determined by a jury.
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff files this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure on behalf of a class of Black employees who work or worked for Defendant and who
`
`were subjected to discrimination by Defendant due to their race. The putative class includes all
`
`Black employees who work or worked for Defendant in the United States, and a sub-class of all
`
`Black employees who work or worked for Defendant in New York. All requirements of class
`
`certification are met by the proposed class.
`
`45.
`
`The class of Black employees and former employees is so numerous that joinder of
`
`all members is impracticable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).
`
`46.
`
`There are questions of law and fact common to the class, and those questions can
`
`and should be resolved in a single proceeding that furthers this litigation. Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`23(a)(2).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`
`47.
`
`The claims alleged by Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the class. Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 23(a)(3).
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4).
`
`49.
`
`The proposed class meets the requirements for certification under Rule 23(b)(2)
`
`and/or Rule 23(b)(3). The questions of law and fact common to the members of the class
`
`predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior
`
`to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 23(b)(3).
`
`50.
`
`Alternatively, the issues of determining liability and equitable relief are
`
`appropriate for issue certification under Rule 23(c)(4), as are other common issues.
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
`42 U.S.C. § 1981
`(Nationwide Class and Plaintiff)
`
`Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, realleges the
`
`51.
`
`above paragraphs and incorporates them by reference as though fully stated herein as part of
`
`Count I of this Complaint.
`
`52.
`
`Under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, as amended, people of all races are guaranteed the same
`
`right to make and enforce contracts, regardless of race. The term “make and enforce” contracts
`
`includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment
`
`of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant maintained a nationwide set of uniform, intentionally discriminatory
`
`employment practices, engaged in a pattern or practice of systemic race discrimination against
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`- 16 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01735-SVK Document 1 Filed 03/18/22 Page 17 of 24
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`2

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket