SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Document Scanning Lead Sheet
`
`Sep-14-2017 9:45 am
`
`Case Number: CGC-17-561299
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Filing Date: Sep-14—2017 9:36
`
`Filed by: ROSSALY DELAVEGA
`
`Image: 06024971
`
`KELLY ELLIS ET AL VS. GOOGLE, INC
`
`001C06024971
`
`Instructions:
`
`Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.
`
`

`

`c
`
`o
`
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`
`SUMMONS
`
`(A VISO AL DEMANDADO):
`
`Google, Inc.
`
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`
`Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated
`
`
`
`SUM-100
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTfl
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`
`
`below.
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`
`
`served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
`the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default. and your wages, money, and property
`may be taken without further warning from the court.
`There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attomey, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lewhelpca/ifomia. org). the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`(www.courtinfo.cagov/selfirelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`[A VISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dies, Ia oon‘e puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versién. Lea la infon-nacién a
`oontinuacion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDAR/O después de que la entreguen esta Citacion y papa/es lega/es para presenter una respuesta por escn'to en esta
`oorte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta a una IIamade te/efcnica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que esfar
`en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su case en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulan'o que usted puede usar para su respuesta.
`Puede encontrar estos formulen'os de la corte y mas infon'nacién en el Centre de Ayuda de Ias Cortes de Celifomia (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
`biblioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede mas cerca. Si no puede pager le cuota de presentacion, pida al secretario de la corte
`que le dé un fonnulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
`podra quitar su sue/do, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
`Hay otros requisitos Iegales. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogado inmedietamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
`remisién a abogados. Si no puede pager a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisites para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
`programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de Iucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
`(www.lawhelpcalifomia.org), en el Centre de Ayuda de Ias Cortes de Califomie, Mww.sucorte.ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con la corte a el
`oolegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Parley, Ia oorte tiene derecho a reclamar Ias cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
`cualquier recuperacion de 310, 000 o mas de valor recibide mediante un acuerdo o une ooncesién de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
`pager el gravamen de la corte antes de que la oorte puede desechar el caso.
`
`400 McCallister St., San Francisco, CA 94102
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The name and address of the court is:
`_
`_
`@9165:1 75 6 1 2 99
`(El nombre y direccion de la corte es): San Francrsco County Superlor Court
`
`
`
`
`
`The name. address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
`
`(El nombre, Ia direccién y el numero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, 0 de/ demandante que no tiene ab- . .
`James M. Finberg; 177 Post Street, Suite 300, San Francisco
`-
`-
`‘ .
`
`
`CLERK'OF THE comp/0...... by
`
`(Secretario'
`
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citatién use e/ formulan'o P
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON
`
`
`
`1. [:1 as an individual defendant.
`
`3, III on behalf of (specify): Google, Inc.
`
`[3 CCP 416.60 (minor)
`CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`1:] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`CI CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`|:| CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) [:] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`:1 other (specify):
`4. I: by personal delivery on (date):
` 1 oft
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Code of Civil Procedure
`412.20 465
`Judicial Council of Callfomia
`www.ciitinfocdgov
`SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009]
`
`under:
`
`SUMMONS
`
`
`
`

`

`,_
`
`.-
`
`._
`
`,
`
`_
`
`F I L E
`_
`sen Francisco Countys
`””9”” CW!
`SEP 1 4 2017
`
`C
`
`BY'
`
`OF T
`l T
`fl???
`D9900
`
`rk
`
`C
`
`‘
`
`JAMES M. FINBERG (SBN 114850)
`EVE H. CERVANTEZ (SBN 164709)
`CORINNE F. JOHNSON (SBN 287385)
`Altshuler Berzon LLP
`177 Post Street, Suite 300
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone:
`(415) 421-7151
`Facsimile:
`(415) 362-8064
`
`E-mail: jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com
`ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
`cjohnson@altshu1erberzon.com
`
`KELLY M. DERMODY (SBN 171716)
`ANNE B. SHAVER (SBN 255928)
`MICHELLE LAMY (SBN 308174)
`Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP
`275 Batterv St.. 29th Floor
`San Francisco. CA 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 956-1000
`Facsimile:
`(415) 956-1008
`E-mail: kdennodv@lchb.com
`ashaver@lchb.com
`mlamy@lchb.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs KELLY ELLIS,
`HOLLY PEASE, and KELLI WISURI, on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly
`situated
`
`\OOOQONUIAUJNu—n
`O—dl—iI—Iv—iD—iHMhWNHO
`NNNNNNNNN—‘H“VOW-FUJN—‘OOOO
`
`\IO\
`
`n—Ii—t
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`KELLY ELLIS, HOLLY PEASE, and KELLI
`WISURI, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated, ‘
`
`Case No..cac - 1 7 " 56 12 9 9
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`1. Violation of California Equal Pay Act (Labor
`Code §§1197.5, 1194.5)
`2. Failure to Pay All Wages Due to Discharged
`and Quitting Employees (Labor Code §§201 -
`203, 1194.5)
`3. Unfair and Unlawful Business Practices (Bus.
`& Prof. Code §17200)
`4. Declaratory Judgment (C.C.P. §1060 et seq.)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

` C
`
`O
`
`'
`
`p—n
`
`\DOOQQUI-RUJN
`
`I—lb—‘I—lNF—‘o
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Plaintiffs Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, and Kelli Wisuri (collectively “Plaintiffs”),
`
`individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are informed and believe, and thereon
`
`allege, as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class
`
`defined as all women employed by Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”) in California at any time
`
`during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
`
`of trial in this action (“Class Period”).
`
`2.
`
`Throughout the Class Period and throughout California, Google has discriminated
`
`and continues to discriminate against its female employees by systematically paying them lower
`
`compensation than Google pays to male employees performing substantially similar work under
`
`similar working conditions, in violation of the California Equal Pay Act, Labor Code §l 197.5.
`
`Google’s failure to pay women and men equal compensation for substantially similar work is not
`
`justified by any lawfiil reason.
`
`3.
`
`Throughout the Class Period and throughout California, Google has discriminated
`
`and continues to discriminate against its female employees by paying female employees less than
`
`male employees with similar skills, experience, and duties; by assigning and keeping women in
`
`job ladders and levels with lower compensation ceilings and advancement opportunities than
`
`those to which men with similar skills, experience, and duties are assigned and kept; and by
`
`promoting fewer women and promoting women more slowly than it has promoted similarly-
`
`qualified men. The net result of this systemic discrimination is that Google pays women less
`
`than men for comparable work.
`
`4.
`
`At all relevant times, Google has known or should have known of the pay
`
`disparity between its female and male employees, yet Google has failed to equalize men’s and
`
`women’s pay for substantially similar work. Google’s failure to pay female employees the same
`
`compensation paid to male employees for substantially similar work has been and is willful.
`
`5.
`
`As a result of Google’s discriminatory and unlawful pay, job assignment, and
`
`promotion policies and/or practices, Plaintiffs and class members have been denied opportunities
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`C
`
`O
`
`and fair wages during the Class Period, and they are entitled to wages due, interest thereon, and
`
`liquidated damages. In addition to damages, Plaintiffs also seek declaratory and injunctive relief
`
`enjoining Google from continuing to pay women less than men for substantially similar work,
`
`including by segregating women into lesser compensated jobs than men with similar skills and
`
`experience; and from failing to promote women at the same rate or pace as men.
`
`I
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because Google is a corporation that
`
`maintains its headquarters in California, is licensed to do business in California, regularly
`
`conducts business in California, and committed and continues to commit the unlawful acts
`
`alleged herein in California.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
`
`§395.5. Google has an office in San Francisco, which is where many class members have
`
`worked and continue to work for Google. Google’s obligation to pay its female employees
`
`equally to its male employees, and its liability for failing to do so, therefore arise in, among other
`
`counties, the County of San Francisco.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Kelly Ellis is a woman who was employed by Google as a Software
`
`Engineer at Google’s Mountain View office from approximately May 2010 to approximately
`
`July 2014.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Holly Pease is a woman who was employed by Google as a Manager,
`
`Corporate Network Engineering; Manager, Business Systems Integration; Manager, Corporate
`
`Data Warehouse/Reporting Team; and Senior Manager, Business Systems Integration, at
`
`Google’s Mountain View office and, for her final year, at Google’s Sunnyvale office, from
`
`approximately August 2005 to approximately February 2016.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Kelli Wisuri is a woman who was employed by Google as a Sales
`
`Communications Specialist and Google Brand Evangelist, Executive Communications Program,
`
`at Google’s Mountain View office from approximately October 2012 to approximately January
`
`201 5.
`
` 3
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`\OOOQQMAWNH
`
`NNNNNNNNNHF‘HD—lD—Ol—li—‘Hl—IH”\IQMAWNflocWVQM-hWN‘HO
`
`

`

`c
`
`‘
`
`o
`
`t—t
`
`©00\lO\UI-bb¢l\)
`
`NNNNNNNNN—‘b—‘Hl—lb‘D—iI—II—ID—lr—l”\IONU’I-D-WNHOOOOVO‘MLWN'HO
`
`11.
`
`On information and belief, Google paid Plaintiffs Ellis, Pease, and Wisuri less
`
`than men for substantially equal or similar work, including, but not limited to, assigning and
`
`keeping Plaintiffs in lower compensation levels than similarly qualified men performing
`
`substantially similar work and assigning and keeping Plaintiffs in job ladders and levels that had
`
`lower compensation ceilings than the job ladders and levels of similarly qualified men
`
`performing substantially similar work.
`
`12.
`
`Google is a corporation that develops and sells technology-related services and
`
`products. Google’s San Francisco office is located at 345 Spear Street, San Francisco, California
`94105. Google’s headquarters is located at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View,
`
`California 94043. Upon information and belief, Google employs over 21,000 employees at its
`
`Mountain View office and also has employees at its six other office locations throughout
`
`California.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`13.
`
`In or around September 2015, the United States Department of Labor’s Office of
`
`Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) initiated a compliance review of Google’s
`
`Mountain View headquarters. OFCCP performed a statistical regression analysis of the
`
`compensation data for all approximately 21,000 employees at Google’s Mountain View office
`
`for the year 2015. That analysis “found systemic compensation disparities against women pretty
`”I
`
`much across the entire workforce.
`
`OFCCP’s analysis showed six to seven standard deviations
`
`between pay for men and women in nearly every job classification in 2015.2 Two standard
`
`deviations is considered statistically significant; six or seven standard deviations means there is a
`
`one in 100 million chance that the disparity is occurring randomly or by chance.
`
`14.
`
`Throughout the Class Period and throughout California, Google has paid women
`
`less than men for substantially equal or similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort,
`
`and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions.
`
`I In re OFCCP v. Google, Inc., Dep’t of Labor, ALJ Case No. 2017-OFC-08004 (April 7, 2017
`hearing) at 48 (testimony by OFCCP Regional Director Janette Wipper).
`
`2 “Google Deliberately Confuses Its Employees, Fed Says,” Wired, July 25, 2017 (quoting Janet
`Herold, Regional Solicitor for OFCCP).
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`O
`
`O
`
`H
`
`\OOOVQUIJAUJN
`
`NNNNNNNNNt—‘I—It—‘I—It—fib—II—II—‘v—ll—tWflothNV—‘OWOOQQMAWNHO
`
`15.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Google’s compensation, assignment, and promotion
`
`policies and practices have been and centinue to be centrally determined and unifome applied
`to all of Google’s employees throughout its California office locations.
`
`16.
`
`Throughout the Class Period, Google has maintained and continues to maintain a
`
`centrally determined and uniform set of policies and/or practices for determining employees’
`
`compensation throughout California, including centralized policies and/or practices for setting
`
`employees’ initial pay and centralized policies and/or practices for giving employees pay raises,
`
`bonuses, and company equity. For example, Google’s offices throughout California use a
`
`common organizational structure, organizing employees by job levels and ladders. Google’s
`
`centralized pay structure establishes corporate-imposed compensation ranges based on
`
`employees’ job ladder and level. These compensation ranges are set on a company-wide basis
`
`and apply across all of Google’s California offices.
`
`17.
`
`Throughout the Class Period and throughout California, Google has maintained
`
`and continues to maintain a centrally determined and uniformly applied policy and/or practice of
`
`paying its female employees less than male employees for substantially equal or similar work,
`
`when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar
`
`working conditions.
`
`18.
`
`Under Google’s organizational structure, higher job levels receive better
`
`compensation than lower levels, including higher salaries and opportunities for bonuses, raises,
`
`and company equity. “Technical” job ladders have more generous salary bands and
`
`compensation than “non-technical” job ladders, irrespective of the job duties performed. In
`
`addition, certain jobs and job ladders receive higher compensation and greater advancement
`
`opportunities, even in comparison to jobs and job ladders that, when viewed as a composite of
`
`skill, effort, and responsibility, require substantially similar work.
`
`19.
`
`Throughout the Class Period and throughout California, Google has channeled
`
`and segregated, and continues to channel and segregate, women on the basis of their sex into
`
`lower compensation levels and into less-compensated and less-favorable job ladders and levels
`
`than men with equal or lesser qualifications and/or men performing substantially similar work.
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`p—a
`
`\OOONONUIAUJN
`
`
`
`
`
`NNNNNNNINNt—tv—tI-dl—lD—ll—IHu—an—ar—A00\1ONkl!AWNHO\O00\l0U1#-U.)N*-‘O
`
`C
`
`0
`
`Google has had and maintains an ongoing and continuous policy and/or practice of paying
`
`women less than men with similar qualifications and duties and of promoting men more
`
`frequently and to higher-paying job ladders and levels than women with similar qualifications
`
`and duties.
`
`20.
`
`Google performs internal pay equity analyses on an annual basis. Google is also
`
`required to maintain records of the wage rates, job classifications, and other terms and conditions
`
`of employment of all of its employees throughout California. Google therefore knew or should
`
`have known that it paid female employees less than it paid their male counterparts for
`
`performing substantially equalor similar work, yet Google took no steps at any time during the
`
`Class Period to pay women equally to men as required by the Labor Code, §1197.5 et seq.
`
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiffs bring their first through fourth causes of action on behalf of themselves
`
`and on behalf of the following proposed class (“Class”):
`
`All women employed by Google in California at any time during the time period
`beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in
`this action.
`
`22.
`
`_
`
`This action is appropriately suited for a class action pursuant to Code of Civil
`
`Procedure 382 because there exists an ascertainable and sufficiently numerous Class, a well-
`
`defined community of interest, and substantial benefits from certification that render proceeding
`
`as a class superior to the alternatives.
`
`23.
`
`Numerosifl and Ascertainability. The size of the Class makes a class action both
`
`necessary and efficient. On information and belief, the proposed Class includes thousands of
`
`current and former female Google employees located across California. Members of the Class
`
`are ascertainable through Google’s records, but are so numerous that joinder of all individual
`
`Class members would be impractical.
`
`24.
`
`Predominant Common Questions of Law and Fact. Common questions of law
`
`and fact affecting the rights of all Class members predominate over individualized issues. These
`
`common questions include, but are not limited to: (a) whether Google has a systemic policy
`
`
`and/or practice of paying its female employees at wage rates lower than those paid to its male
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`c
`
`'
`
`.
`
`0
`
`employees performing substantially equal or similar work under similar conditions; (b) whether
`
`Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of paying its female employees at wage rates lower
`
`than those paid to their male counterparts violates the California Equal Pay Act, as amended,
`Labor Code §1197.5 et seq.; (c) whether Google has a systemic policy and/or practice of
`
`assigning and maintaining women in lower-paid job levels or job ladders than men; and ((1)
`
`whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of paying its female employees at wage rates
`
`lower than those paid to their male counterparts was willful.
`
`25.
`
`Typicalig: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class as a whole
`
`because Plaintiffs are women who were employed by Google in California during the Class
`
`Period and were paid less than male employees for substantially equal or similar work. Upon
`
`information and belief, Google has applied uniform wage rate, promotion, and level and job
`
`ladder policies and practices to its employees throughout California at all times throughout the
`
`Class Period.
`
`26.
`
`Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the
`
`interests of the Class because their individual interests are consistent with, and not antagonistic
`
`to, the interests of the Class, and because Plaintiffs have selected counsel who have the requisite
`
`resources and ability to prosecute this case as a class'action and are experienced labor and
`
`employment attorneys who have successfully litigated other cases involving similar issues,
`
`including in class actions.
`
`27.
`
`Superiorifl of Class Mechanism. Class certification is appropriate because
`
`common questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual
`
`Class Members. Google?s liability in this case is based on uniform company policies and
`
`procedures. The compensation owed to each individual Class Member is small in relation to the
`
`expense and burden of individual litigation to recover that compensation. The prosecution of
`
`separate actions against Google by individual Class Members could create a risk of inconsistent
`
`or varying adjudications which could establish incompatible standards of conduct for Google. A
`
`class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
`
`\OOOQONUIAWNu—a
`
`NNNNNNNNNu—nu—tn—v—Au—‘p—th—a—‘Ir—iu—AWNQMkWNi-‘OOOOQQUIAUJNHO
`
`controversy set forth herein.
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`c:
`
`o
`
`ALLEGATIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS
`
`Plaintiff Kelly Ellis
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff Ellis was hired by Google in 2010 as a frontend Software Engineer on
`
`the Google Photos team. ‘ During the hiring process, Google asked Ms. Ellis about her prior
`
`salary. Google then offered Ms. Ellis the same base salary as she received at her prior job.
`
`29.
`
`Ms. Ellis graduated from the University of Virginia in 2006 with a bachelor’s
`
`degree in applied mathematics and a minor in computer science. At the time of her hiring, she
`
`had four years’ experience working in backend software engineering. Google, however, placed
`
`her into Level 3 on the Software Engineering ladder. Level 3 is the level to which Google
`
`typically assigns new college graduates.
`
`30. Within a few weeks of hiring Ms. Ellis, Google hired a male software engineer
`
`onto Ms. Ellis’s team. Although that male engineer, like Ms. Ellis, had graduated in 2006,
`
`Google placed him into the higher-paying Level 4 on the Software Engineering ladder. Google
`also placed and promoted other male software engineers with qualifications equal to or less than
`
`Ms. Ellis’s qualifications into Level 4 and higher on Ms. Ellis’s team and on other similar
`
`software engineering teams.
`
`31.
`
`Level 4 Software Engineers receive substantially higher salary and opportunities
`
`for bonuses, raises, and equity than Level 3 Software Engineers.
`
`32.
`
`Ms. Ellis received excellent performance reviews. Senior software engineers that
`
`she worked with quickly recognized that she had been under-levelled, and suggested she apply
`
`for a promotion consistent with her skill and experience. But the first time Ms. Ellis applied for
`
`a promotion, Google denied her application. Although Google acknowledged her excellent
`
`performance, it refused to pay her at the same rate as similar men on the basis that she had not
`
`been at the company long enough to merit a promotion. Ms. Ellis eventually obtained the
`
`higher-paying Level 4 designation that was handed to her male counterparts on their first day on
`
`the job—but by that time, her male counterparts were on their way to even higher levels and
`
`compensation for similar work, ensuring that she could never catch up on the gender pay gap.
`
` 8
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`AWN
`\OOONOUI
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`C
`
`.
`
`O
`
`33.
`
`There is a false and gendered perception at Google that backend software
`
`engineering is more technically rigorous, and therefore more prestigious, than frontend software
`
`engineering. Google pays backend engineers more than frontend and fasttracks them for
`
`promotion. On the teams Ms. Ellis worked with and observed at Google, almost all backend
`
`software engineers were men. Almost all female software engineers, however, were frontend
`
`engineers. The skills required to perform these jobs are equal or substantially similar.
`
`34.
`
`Google assigned male engineers that joined Ms. Ellis’s Google Photos team at or
`
`around the same time as Ms. Ellis to backend engineering jobs. Despite Ms. Ellis’s prior
`
`experience in backend engineering, and her qualifications, ability, and desire to work in backend
`engineering, Google assigned her to an occupationally-segregated frontend engineering role
`
`upon hiring her. Although Ms. Ellis was eventually assigned to backend engineering work, on
`
`information and belief, for the entire time that Ms. Ellis worked at Google, she was paid less than
`
`men for substantially equal or similar work performed under similar working conditions, when
`
`viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility.
`
`35.
`
`Ms. Ellis resigned from Google in approximately July 2014 because of the sexist
`
`culture at Google.
`
`36.
`
`On information and belief, for the entire time that Ms. Ellis worked at Google, she
`
`was paid less than men for substantially equal or similar work performed under similar working
`
`conditions, when viewed. as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility.
`
`Plaintiff Holly Pease
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Pease was hired by Google in 2005 as a corporate network manager. At
`
`the time of her hiring, she had over 10 years’ experience working as a network engineer, Director
`
`ofNetwork Engineering, and Vice President ofNetwork Engineering. Shortly after she was
`
`hired, she became a data warehouse manager.
`
`38.
`
`OVer the next several years, Ms. Pease managed engineering teams that developed
`
`software applications, including data warehouses, services, and data analytics, for Google’s
`
`internal infrastructure. As a senior manager, she eventually managed a total of about 50 software
`
` 9
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`\OOOQQUI-thn—A
`D—lb—II—lb-‘U—ID—ll—ID—lNam-kWNHO
`NNNNNNNNNHHwQONMAWNi-‘OVOOO
`
`

`

`C
`
`O
`
`\OOOQOUI-kWNt—a
`
`NNNNNNNNNI—‘D—il—dt—It—II—hh—II—IHHOONQMAWNHOCOOQQ‘JIAWNHO
`
`engineers and analysts across multiple teams. During that time, she received excellent
`
`performance reviews for her work.
`
`39.
`
`Most of the employees Ms. Pease managed were on “technical” job ladders,
`
`including the Software Engineering ladder. The one other senior manager in her group was a
`
`man, and he was also on a “technical” ladder. Yet, despite Ms. Pease’s many years of
`
`engineering experience, and her many years of managing software engineers on technical
`
`software development projects within the company, Google placed and kept her in the “non-
`
`technical” Business Systems ladder, with lower compensation and opportunities for upward
`
`mobility.
`
`40.
`
`Compensation, including salary, bonuses, pay raises, and company equity, is
`
`significantly greater in the “technical” ladders, such as Software Engineering, than in the “non-
`
`technical” Business Systems ladder.
`
`41.
`
`Around 2013, Google reorganized its ladders to transition engineers from the
`
`Business Systems ladder to “technical” ladders. Ms. Pease coached those of her employees who
`
`were still on the “non-technical” ladder on how to pass the technical interviews necessary to
`
`convert to the “technical” ladder. Almost all of these employees were re-assigned to the higher-
`
`paying Software Engineering ladder, including a male manager one level below her whom she
`
`personally coached, and who, despite performing poorly on a technical interview, was assigned
`
`to the Software Engineering ladder because he managed software engineers. The transitioned
`
`employees’ job duties did not change after their re-assignment to a higher-paying “technical”
`
`ladder.
`
`42.
`
`Google, however, denied Ms. Pease a fair opportunity to be paid at the same rate
`
`as similar employees on the “technical” ladder. Ms. Pease’s two interviewers, both men, did not
`
`ask her any technical questions, and one interviewer did not even bother to take notes of the
`
`meeting with her. Google ultimately denied Ms. Pease re-assignment to the higher-paying
`
`“technical” ladder on the pretense that she lacked technical ability, even though she had decades
`
`of technical experience and even though she—like the male manager she coached into a similar
`
`re-assignment—managed software engineers.
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`O
`
`O
`
`\OOONQLh-AUJNv—a
`\IQUI-JBUJNHO
`v—Av—A—v—tv—tn—nv—Ap—i
`NNNNNNNNNv—‘HOOQQM-BWNHODOO
`
`43. While Ms. Pease was on medical leave, Google transferred the employees she
`
`managed to another group. When she returned from medical leave, the only position made
`
`available to her was a non-engineering position in physical security. Ms. Pease received
`
`excellent performance reviews in her new position. Nonetheless, due to the lack of technical and
`
`engineering opportunities available to her and other women at Google, the denial of
`
`compensation commensurate with her skills relative to similar men, and the stalling out of her
`
`career at the company, Ms. Pease resigned in February 2016.
`
`44.
`
`On information and belief, for the entire time that Ms. Pease worked at Google,
`
`she was paid less than men for substantially equal or similar work performed under similar
`
`working conditions, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility.
`
`Plaintiff Kelli Wisuri
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff Wisuri joined Google sales in October 2012 when her company was
`
`acquired by Google. Ms. Wisuri graduated from the University of Califomia—Berkeley in 2007
`with a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. At the time ofher hiring, she had two-and-a-half years’
`
`experience working as a salesperson. Google, however, placed her into Level 2. Upon
`
`information and belief, Level 2 is the lowest level available to permanent, full-time employees.
`
`Upon information and belief, Google placed and places male employees with similar sales
`
`qualifications and experience and/or doing substantially equal or similar work into Level 3 or
`
`higher.
`
`46.
`
`Despite her sales role, Google did not place Ms. Wisuri on the Sales ladder.
`
`Rather, upon information and belief, Google placed Ms. Wisuri on the Sales Enablement ladder.
`
`Unlike the Sales ladder, which is paid on commission, the Sales Enablement ladder is
`
`compensated by salary. As a result, Sales Enablement jobs have considerably less compensation
`
`potential than Sales jobs. Almost all of the employees on the Sales teams Ms. Wisuri worked
`
`with were men. About 50% of the employees she encountered with Sales Enablement jobs,
`
`however, were women.
`
`47.
`
`Ms. Wisuri also worked as a Google Brand Evangelist in the Executive
`
`Communications Program. Her job duties included preparing and presenting sales pitches to the
`
`l 1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`c
`
`7
`
`0
`
`\OOO\IO\UIJ>U)N'—|
`
`NNNNNNNNNHn—It—Ah—II—tb—In—In—Ip—Au—Iwflam-fiWNHOQWQQMhWNHO
`
`executive teams of clients with more than $10 million in brand marketing sales to Google. Her
`
`role was a dedicated part-of Google’s “sales funnel,” and she worked with Sales teams both
`
`before and after the pitches. During her time at Google, she was responsible for bringing in
`
`significant new revenue to Google. But although she was performing work that was
`
`substantially equal or similar to that performed by her male counterparts on the Sales team, she
`
`remained on the Sales Enablement ladder, which is less compensated and, upon information and
`
`belief, provides fewer opportunities for career advancement into higher-paying jobs.
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, for the entire time that Ms. Wisuri worked at Google,
`
`she was paid less than men for substantially equal or similar work performed under similar
`
`working conditions, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility.
`
`49.
`
`Due to the lack of opportunities for advancement for women at Google, Ms.
`
`Wisuri resigned from Google in January 2015.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Violation of the California Equal Pay Act
`Cal. Labor Code §§1197.5 et seq., 1194.5
`(Brought by Plaintiffs Holly Pease and Kelli Wisuri on Behalf of Themselves and the
`Plaintiff Class)
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate by reference all allegations in each and
`
`every preceding paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
`
`51.
`
`Google has discriminated and continues to discriminate against Plaintiffs and all
`
`Class members in violation of Califor