Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 49
`
`Ben Crump (pro hac vice)
`Nabeha Shaer (pro hac vice)
`BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC
`122 S. Calhoun St.
`Tallahassee, FL 32301
`Telephone:
`(800) 713-1222
`court@bencrump.com
`
`Linda D. Friedman (pro hac vice)
`Suzanne E. Bish (pro hac vice)
`George Robot (pro hac vice)
`Mark S. Current (pro hac vice)
`STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
`303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone:
`(312) 431-0888
`sbish@sfltd.com
`
`Sam Sani (SBN 2733993)
`SANI LAW, APC
`15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405
`Encino, CA 91436
`Telephone:
`(310) 935-0405
`ssani@sanilawfirm.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`APRIL CURLEY, DESIREE MAYON,
`RONIKA LEWIS, RAYNA REID, ANIM
`AWEH, and EBONY THOMAS, individually
`and behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CASE NO: 4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Class Action
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`469015
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 49
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs April Curley (“Curley”), Desiree Mayon (“Mayon”), Ronika Lewis (“Lewis”),
`
`Rayna Reid (“Reid”), Anim Aweh (“Aweh”), and Ebony Thomas (“Thomas”) (collectively,
`
`“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through their
`
`attorneys, Ben Crump Law, PLLC, Stowell & Friedman, Ltd., and Sani Law, APC, hereby file
`
`this Second Amended Complaint against Defendant Google, LLC (“Defendant” or “Google”) and
`
`in support state as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Google famously adopted “don’t be evil” as a core value in its early days. Yet it
`
`has grown into one of the world’s largest corporate behemoths, Google has 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 systemic race discrimination against its African American and Black
`
`employees and job applicants. 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 refuses to hire extraordinarily qualified Black job applicants, and subjects the few Black
`
`employees it does hire to wildly differential treatment. Google assigns Black professionals to
`
`lower-level roles, pays them less, unfairly rates their performance, and denies them advancement
`
`and leadership roles because of their race. Black professionals at Google face a racially 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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 49
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs have been 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 Curley in 2014 to expand its outreach to Black college
`
`students. Like other Black professionals, including Plaintiffs Mayon, Lewis, and Reid, Google
`
`placed Curley in a lower job grade and title than her work and responsibilities warranted and
`
`denied her pay and promotion opportunities because of her race. Plaintiffs Curley, Mayon, Lewis,
`
`Reid and other Black professionals were often pigeon-holed into dead-end jobs—with less
`
`visibility, lower pay, and no advancement opportunities.
`
`4.
`
`As Curley brought talented, qualified Black candidates to Google, she discovered
`
`Google did not really care about diversity and equal employment opportunities but sought only to
`
`burnish its public image for marketing purposes. Google wanted Curley, as an African American
`
`woman, to quietly put on a good face for the company and toe the company line. But Curley was
`
`unwilling to be used as a mere marketing ploy. Curley 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 Curley because of her race and her
`
`protected activity. Consistent with Google’s retaliation against Curley for speaking out against
`
`the company’s discrimination, Google similarly targeted Plaintiffs Mayon, Lewis and Reid for
`
`reporting their own discriminatory treatment.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 4 of 49
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Like many of the talented Black candidates Curley presented to Google, Plaintiffs
`
`Aweh and Thomas experienced Google’s discriminatory hiring practices first-hand. Despite their
`
`outstanding credentials and experience, Google refused them employment because of their race.
`
`Indeed, after Plaintiff Thomas successfully completed a rigorous application and interview
`
`process, she was rejected as not a “cultural fit” or “Googly” enough, a racial dog whistle that is
`
`code for race discrimination. Aweh was similarly denied over 10 jobs for which she was well
`
`qualified.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class of current and
`
`former Black Google employees and rejected applicants 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
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
`
`1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), and this Court has jurisdiction over
`
`this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, and 1343. This Court has supplemental
`
`jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state-law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because they arise out of the
`
`same nucleus of operative facts.
`
`8.
`
`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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 5 of 49
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Google, LLC is one of the largest companies in the world. Google develops and
`
`sells technology products and services. Google services generated over $257 billion in revenue in
`
`2021.1 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.
`
`10.
`
`Google maintains its corporate headquarters at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway,
`
`Mountain View, California. Google employs over 21,000 employees at its corporate headquarters,
`
`and tens of thousands of employees across the United States.
`
`11.
`
`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
`
`diligently and performed at a high level for Google. Nonetheless, pursuant to Defendant’s
`
`nationwide pattern or practice of race discrimination and discriminatory employment practices,
`
`Google paid Curley lower wages and denied her advancement opportunities because of her race,
`
`and subjected her to a hostile work environment and retaliation.
`
`
`1 Alphabet Inc., Form 10-K at 32 (Feb. 2, 2022),
`https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204422000019/goog-20211231.htm
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 6 of 49
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Desiree Mayon is an African American woman and was employed by
`
`Google as a Technical Program Manager from August 2019 until she was unlawfully terminated
`
`in September 2021. Throughout her employment, Mayon worked diligently and performed at a
`
`high level for Google. Nonetheless, pursuant to Defendant’s nationwide pattern or practice of race
`
`discrimination, Google denied Mayon compensation and advancement opportunities because of
`
`her race, and subjected her to a hostile work environment and retaliation, among other things.
`
`Google also subjected Mayon to discrimination and retaliation due to her sex and disability.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Ronika Lewis is an African American woman who has been employed at
`
`Google as a Senior Program Manager in the Mountain View, California headquarters since
`
`February 2020. Throughout her employment, Lewis has worked diligently and performed at a
`
`high level for Google. Nonetheless, pursuant to Defendant’s nationwide pattern or practice of race
`
`discrimination, Google has denied Lewis compensation and advancement opportunities because
`
`of her race, and subjected her to a hostile work environment and retaliation.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Rayna Reid is an African American woman and was employed by Google
`
`as a Staffing Channel Specialist in Austin, Texas from October 2018, until she was unlawfully
`
`terminated in January 2020. Throughout her employment, Reid worked diligently and performed
`
`at a high level for Google. Nonetheless, pursuant to Defendant’s nationwide pattern or practice of
`
`race discrimination, Google denied Reid compensation and advancement opportunities because of
`
`her race, and subjected her to a hostile work environment and retaliation.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Anim Aweh is an African American woman who applied for employment
`
`at Google in November 2021 and thereafter, but was denied jobs for which she was well qualified
`
`because of her race and pursuant to Google’s discriminatory hiring practices.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 7 of 49
`
`
`
`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
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Ebony Thomas is an African American woman who applied for
`
`employment at Google in April 2021 and thereafter, but was denied jobs for which she was well
`
`qualified because of her race and pursuant to Google’s discriminatory hiring practices.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Google Systematically Discriminates Against Black Employees
`
`Google is engaged in a nationwide pattern or practice of intentional race
`
`17.
`
`discrimination and maintains employment policies and practices that have a disparate impact
`
`against Black employees and job applicants across the United States.
`
`18.
`
`Google’s overwhelmingly non-Black executives hold racially biased, stereotypical,
`
`and harmful views of Black employees and employment candidates. Indeed, the California
`
`Department of Fair Employment and Housing is currently investigating Google for its treatment
`
`of Black female employees.2
`
`19.
`
`Google’s racially biased corporate culture and discriminatory practices emanate
`
`from but 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.
`
`20. When Google hired Plaintiff Curley 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
`
`
`2 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/california-investigates-googles-treatment-black-women-
`workers-rcna9154
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 7 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 8 of 49
`
`
`
`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
`
`2020, despite the heroic and uphill efforts of people like Plaintiff Curley, 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+.”3
`
`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.4 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.
`
`21.
`
`Google’s anemic diversity statistics are the result of its discriminatory hiring and
`
`employment policies and practices. Google employs company-wide hiring policies and practices
`
`for the recruitment, screening, interviewing, evaluating, and hiring of candidates that discriminate
`
`against Black applicants at every step of the hiring process. Google disproportionately screens out
`
`and assigns lower scores to Black applicants than similarly qualified and even less qualified non-
`
`Black applicants, among other discriminatory practices. Google relies on factors and processes
`
`that individually and collectively discriminate against Black applicants and hold Black applicants
`
`to differential and higher standards than non-Black applicants. Indeed, even when Black
`
`applicants “pass” the initial screens and interviews, Google employs discriminatory “culture-fit”
`
`
`3 Google’s self-reporting category “Black+” includes employees who identify as more than one race, one
`of which is Black.
`4 https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 8 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 9 of 49
`
`
`
`interviews to assess a candidate’s “Googlyness” to deny well reviewed Black applicants
`
`opportunities and positions for which they are otherwise well-qualified, and often the best
`
`candidate.
`
`22.
`
`The Black employees hired by Google must work in an unflinchingly hostile
`
`workplace, in which racial segregation and harassment are commonplace and unabated. Pursuant
`
`to its racially biased corporate culture, Google fosters a racially hostile work environment in its
`
`workplaces across the country, including its Mountain View headquarters. While non-Black
`
`Googlers freely stroll Google’s state-of-the-art workplaces, Black Google employees are viewed
`
`with suspicion and routinely harassed and subjected to invasive security stops and identification
`
`checks. They are treated as unwelcome outsiders or even threats at Google’s Mountain View
`
`headquarters, reminiscent of the over-policing of Black communities that plagues America. In
`
`doing their jobs and pursuing their careers and dreams at Google, Black employees are openly
`
`subjected to striking racist and racialized comments and conduct by their peers and managers.
`
`There is open and offensive talk at Google of slavery and skin color, and racial caricatures and
`
`stereotypes abound. Google personnel falsely assume and openly comment that Black
`
`professionals are unqualified, dumb, and do not belong. For example, Black professional
`
`“Googlers” are often assumed to be “the help” and directed to help with dishes and told to smile
`
`more and ask to be of service to non-Black colleagues and managers. Google’s racially hostile
`
`workplace is so pervasive and notorious that employees of color created a shared document on the
`
`company’s intranet to share thousands of examples of acts of harassment and microaggressions
`
`they face on a daily basis at Google offices.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 9 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 10 of 49
`
`
`
`23.
`
`In addition to being forced to work in a racially hostile work environment, Black
`
`Google employees face company-wide discriminatory pay, level and job assignment,
`
`performance assessment, and advancement and promotion policies and practices that
`
`systematically underpay, diminish, and delay and deny their advancement in a number of ways.
`
`24.
`
`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 and compensation range, among other things.
`
`25.
`
`Following its company-wide pattern or practice of discrimination and racially
`
`biased culture, Google places Black hires and employees into lower-levels than their experience
`
`and responsibilities warrant and than similarly situated non-Black hires. Google pays Black
`
`employees less compensation and steers them into roles that lack opportunities for advancement
`
`or leadership.
`
`26.
`
`Google’s compensation policies and practices result in racial pay disparities based
`
`on this levelling. 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
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 10 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 11 of 49
`
`
`
`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.
`
`27.
`
`Under Google’s compensation policies and practices, Black professionals
`
`otherwise are paid lower salaries and bonuses and receive less equity than comparable non-Black
`
`employees.
`
`28.
`
`Further, Google maintains company-wide racially discriminatory performance
`
`assessment, management, and review policies and practices, which result in Black employees
`
`being rated lower than their performance warrants and denied advancement opportunities,
`
`compensation, and other benefits. Indeed, Google’s own internal studies and reports reflect that it
`
`rates Black employees lower than their non-Black colleagues in performance review ratings.
`
`Pursuant to Google’s discriminatory practices, Black employees are more likely than any other
`
`group to receive a job-threatening “Needs Improvement” performance review, which results in
`
`substantial earnings losses, is the death-knell for advancement, and often ends their Google
`
`careers.
`
`29.
`
`Google also maintains corporate policies and practices that deny Black
`
`professionals advancement and promotions, stunting their careers and depressing their earnings.
`
`30.
`
`By assigning Black employees to lower-level positions, compensating them less
`
`within levels than similarly situated non-Black employees, unfairly evaluating their performance,
`
`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. Moreover, because of the racially discriminatory and hostile
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 11 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 12 of 49
`
`
`
`environment at Google, as well as the underpayment and denial of advancement, Black
`
`employees suffer above-average attrition rates at Google. In fact, Google’s most recent data
`
`shows that from 2020 to 2021, a period during which white attrition decreased, the already-high
`
`attrition rate for all Black employees increased, with attrition for Black women in particular
`
`exceeding firmwide attrition by nearly 50%.5
`
`31.
`
`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
`
`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.
`
`32.
`
`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.
`
`33.
`
`Thus, during Plaintiffs’ employment, before and afterwards, Google engaged in a
`
`pattern or practice of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct toward its Black employees and
`
`applicants throughout the United States including, but not limited to the following practices:
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Google employs discriminatory hiring policies and practices and denies
`qualified Black applicants employment because of their race;
`
`Google employs policies and practices that result in occupational
`segregation by race and racial steering;
`
`23
`
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`5 2021 Diversity Annual Report at 13, GOOGLE,
`https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/diversity.google/en//annual-
`report/static/pdfs/google_2021_diversity_annual_report.pdf.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 13 of 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`k.
`
`l.
`
`m.
`
`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 maintains discriminatory compensation practices and
`systematically pays its Black employees lower wages and/or denies them
`opportunities to increase their earnings;
`
`Google employs racially discriminatory performance assessment,
`management, and review policies and practices, which result in Black
`employees being rated lower than their performance warrants and results in
`Black employees being denied advancement opportunities, compensation,
`and other benefits and in unwarranted performance management and
`discipline, including termination;
`
`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;
`
`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.
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 13 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 14 of 49
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Google’s policies and practices demonstrate that it fundamentally devalues equal
`
`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.) Google
`
`recently agreed to settle Ellis for $118 million, in addition to certain programmatic relief.
`
`35.
`
`The intentional and disparate impact discrimination described above is ongoing
`
`and constitute a continuing violation of the civil rights laws.
`
`36.
`
`The racially discriminatory policies and practices at Google are uniform and
`
`national in scope. Class members are relying on Plaintiffs and this lawsuit to protect their rights.
`
`Plaintiffs Were Subjected to and Harmed by Defendant’s Unlawful Conduct
`
`
`April Curley
`
`
`37.
`
`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.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 14 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 15 of 49
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Curley worked as a People Programs Specialist I, also known as a University
`
`Programs Specialist, from 2014 until she was unlawfully terminated in 2020. Curley worked for
`
`Google in New York, NY from her hire in 2014 until approximately December 2018, and then
`
`transferred to the Washington, D.C. office, where she worked until her termination.
`
`39.
`
`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.
`
`40.
`
`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.
`
`41.
`
`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
`
`candidates. Plaintiff vocally opposed Google’s systemic discrimination, including the following
`
`discriminatory employment practices, among others:
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SECOND AMENDED
`COMPLAINT
`- 15 -
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 43 Filed 09/15/22 Page 16 of 49
`
`
`
`• 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.
`
`42.
`
`Curley and her Black female colleagues advocated to break down these barriers.
`
`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 conce