`
`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