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
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`06/10/2022
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: SANDRA SCHIRO
`Deputy Clerk
`
`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, CA 94108
`Telephone: (415) 421-7151
`Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
`jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com
`ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com
`cjohnson@altshulerberzon.com
`
`Kelly M. Dermody (SBN 171716)
`Anne B. Shaver (SBN 255928)
`Michelle A. Lamy (SBN 308174)
`LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
`275 Battery St., 29th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 956-1000
`Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
`kdermody@lchb.com
`ashaver@lchb.com
`mlamy@lchb.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Certified Class
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`KELLY ELLIS, HOLLY PEASE, KELLI
`WISURI, and HEIDI LAMAR individually
`and on behalf of all others similarly
`situated,
`
`v.
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. CGC-17-561299
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
`PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION
`FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF
`CLASS ACTION AND PAGA
`SETTLEMENT
`
`Date: June 21, 2022
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Dept: 613
`Judge: Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng,
`
`Complaint Filed: September 14, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`Page
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 6 
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ........................................................ 7 
`OVERVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT .............................................................................. 9 
`A. 
`Class Definitions ..................................................................................................... 9 
`B. 
`Monetary Relief .................................................................................................... 10 
`C. 
`Programmatic Relief ............................................................................................. 12 
`D. 
`Notice .................................................................................................................... 13 
`E. 
`Release of Claims .................................................................................................. 14 
`F. 
`Tax Treatment ....................................................................................................... 14 
`G. 
`Impact on Other Pending Litigation ...................................................................... 15 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ..................................................................................................... 15 
`THE SETTLEMENT IS FAIR, ADEQUATE, AND REASONABLE ............................ 16 
`A. 
`The Settlement Is a Product of Arm’s-Length Negotiations ................................. 17 
`B. 
`Sufficient Discovery Occurred to Allow Counsel and the Court to
`Intelligently Determine the Settlement Is Fair ...................................................... 18 
`Settlement Is Appropriate in Light of the Strength of Plaintiffs’ Case and
`the Risk of Further Litigation ................................................................................ 18 
`The Settlement Provides Substantial Monetary Relief to Class Members ........... 20 
`The Settlement’s Programmatic Non-Monetary Terms Are of Significant
`Value and Will Benefit the Class .......................................................................... 21 
`The Experience and Views of Counsel Support Settlement ................................. 23 
`F. 
`THE PROPOSED NOTICE APPRISES CLASS MEMBERS OF THEIR RIGHTS
`UNDER THE SETTLEMENT AND SATISFIES DUE PROCESS ................................ 23 
`VII.  THE PROPOSED PLAN OF ALLOCATION IS APPROPRIATE ................................. 24 
`A. 
`The Distribution of the Net Settlement Fund Is Appropriate and Fair ................. 24 
`B. 
`The PAGA Payment Is Appropriate and Fair ....................................................... 25 
`C. 
`The Class Representative Service Awards Are Appropriate and Fair .................. 26 
`D. 
`The Proposed Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Are Appropriate and
`Fair ........................................................................................................................ 27 
`VIII.  A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED .................................. 28 
`IX. 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 29 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`E. 
`
`VI. 
`
`
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`- 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
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases 
`7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising v. Southland Corp.,
`85 Cal. App. 4th 1135 (2000) .................................................................................................... 18
`
`Acosta v. Trans Union, LLC,
`243 F.R.D. 377 (C.D. Cal. 2007) ............................................................................................... 16
`Air Line Stewards, etc., Local 550 v. Am. Airlines, Inc.,
`455 F.2d 101 (7th Cir. 1972)...................................................................................................... 20
`Arias v. Superior Court,
`46 Cal. 4th 969 (2009) ............................................................................................................... 16
`Bell v. Farmers Ins. Exchange,
`115 Cal. App. 4th 715 (2004) .................................................................................................... 26
`Branner v. Covenant Aviation Security LLC,
`No. 20:CIV-03164 (San Mateo Superior Court 2020) ......................................................... 23, 27
`Calibuso v. Bank of America,
`No. 10-1413-PKC (E.D.N.Y. 2013) .......................................................................................... 23
`California v. Levi Strauss & Co.,
`41 Cal. 3d 460 (1986) .......................................................................................................... 16, 24
`Cartt v. Superior Court,
`50 Cal. App. 3d 960 (1975).................................................................................................. 23, 24
`Cellphone Termination Fee Cases,
`180 Cal. App. 4th 1110 (2009) ...................................................................................... 15, 16, 24
`City & County of San Francisco v. Sweet,
`12 Cal. 4th 105 (1995) ............................................................................................................... 27
`Clark v. Am. Residential Servs. LLC,
`175 Cal. App. 4th 785 (2009) .................................................................................................... 17
`Consumer Privacy Cases,
`175 Cal. App. 4th 545 (2009) .................................................................................................... 28
`Cuenca v. Kaiser Permanente,
`No. RG20065123 (Alameda Superior Court 2021) ............................................................. 25, 27
`Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.,
`48 Cal. App. 4th 1794 (1996) .............................................................................................. 16, 17
`Ebarle v. Lifelock, Inc.,
`No. 15-cv-00258-HSG, 2016 WL 234364 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2016) ....................................... 19
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,
`No. 04-3341-EMC (N.D. Cal. 2007) ......................................................................................... 23
`In re Bluetooth Headset Prod. Liab. Litig.,
`654 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2011)...................................................................................................... 17
`In re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 01-mdl-1409, 2006 WL 3247396 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 8, 2006) ............................................... 21
`In re High-Tech Emp. Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 11-cv-02509-LHK, 2015 WL 5159441 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2015) ..................................... 21
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`In re Linkedin User Priv. Litig.,
`309 F.R.D. 573 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ............................................................................................... 20
`In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
`213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000)...................................................................................................... 21
`In re Omnivision Techs., Inc.,
`559 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Cal. 2008) ..................................................................................... 21
`In re Toys R Us-Delaware, Inc.-Fair & Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA) Litig.,
`295 F.R.D. 438 (C.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................................................... 21
`Kullar v. Foot Locker Retail, Inc.,
`168 Cal. App. 4th 116 (2008) .................................................................................................... 18
`Laffitte v. Robert Half Int’l Inc.,
`1 Cal. 5th 480 (2016) ........................................................................................................... 27, 28
`Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 11CV1056-MDD, 2015 WL 11216701 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2015) ...................................... 22
`Linney v. Cellular Alaska P’ship,
`151 F.3d 1234 (9th Cir. 1998).................................................................................................... 22
`Mallick v. Superior Ct.,
`89 Cal. App. 3d 434 (1979)........................................................................................................ 16
`Marolda v. Symantec Corp.,
`No. 08-CV-05701 EMC, 2013 WL 12310821 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2013) .................................. 22
`Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc.,
`72 Cal. App. 5th 56 (2021) ........................................................................................................ 16
`Moore v. PetSmart, Inc.,
`No. 5:12-CV-03577-EJD, 2015 WL 5439000 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 4, 2015), aff’d,
`728 F. App’x 671 (9th Cir. 2018) .............................................................................................. 22
`Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DIRECTV, Inc.,
`221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ............................................................................................... 19
`Officers for Just. v. Civ. Serv. Comm’n of City & Cty. of San Francisco,
`688 F.2d 615 (9th Cir. 1982).......................................................................................... 16, 20, 21
`Pan v. Qualcomm,
`No. 16-cv-01885-JLS-DHB (S.D. Cal. 2017) ...................................................................... 25, 27
`Reed v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-02359-JM, 2014 WL 29011 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2014) ............................................... 21
`Romero v. Securus Techs., Inc.,
`No. 16CV1283 JM (MDD), 2020 WL 3250599 (S.D. Cal. June 16, 2020) .............................. 22
`Singh v. Roadrunner Intermodal Servs., LLC,
`No. 15-cv-01497, 2015 WL 5728415 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2015) ............................................. 28
`Smith v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc.,
`No. 10-cv-1116-IEG, 2013 WL 163293 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2013) ........................................... 28
`Van Vranken v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,
`901 F. Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1995) ............................................................................................ 26
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`2420379.4
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`
`
`
`

`

`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
`27
`28
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp.,
`142 F. Supp. 2d 1299 (W.D. Wash. 2001) ................................................................................. 15
`Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc.,
`91 Cal. App. 4th 224 (2001) .......................................................................................... 16, 17, 20
`
`Statutes 
`Cal. Gov't Code §12900 .................................................................................................................. 6
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ..................................................................................................... 6
`Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203 ............................................................................................................ 6
`Cal. Labor Code § 1197.5 ................................................................................................................ 6
`Cal. Labor Code § 2699 ................................................................................................................. 20
`
`Rules 
`Cal. Rule of Court 3.769 ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`Treatises 
`Manual for Complex Litigation (Second) § 1.46 (1982) ............................................................... 16
`
`
`
`2420379.4
`PLAINTIFFS’ MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`On behalf of themselves and a certified class of current and former women employed in
`California by Google, LLC (“Google”) in Covered Positions from September 14, 2013 to the
`present (the “Class” or “Class Members”),1 Plaintiffs Kelly Ellis, Holly Pease, Kelli Wisuri, and
`Heidi Lamar (the “Named Plaintiffs” or “Plaintiffs”) respectfully submit this motion for
`preliminary approval of the Parties’ Class and Private Attorneys General Act, California Labor
`Code § 2698, et seq. (“PAGA”) Settlement Agreement and Proposed Consent Decree (the
`“Settlement”). The proposed Settlement is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kelly M.
`Dermody (“Dermody Decl.”), submitted herewith.
`If approved, the Settlement will resolve Plaintiffs’ certified claims against Google, as well
`as their PAGA claims. Specifically, this Court certified Plaintiffs’ challenge to two alleged
`systemic practices at Google. First, Plaintiffs allege that Google pays women less than men in the
`same job code, in violation of California’s Equal Pay Act, California Labor Code §1197.5
`(“EPA”), which requires that men and women performing substantially equal or similar work be
`paid equally, and in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, California Business and
`Professions Code §17200 (“UCL”), by virtue of the EPA violation. Second, Plaintiffs allege that
`Google assigns women to lower job levels than men with comparable experience and education
`based on lower pay at prior employment, in violation of the UCL by virtue of a violation of
`California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §12900 et seq.
`(“FEHA”). The Court also certified Plaintiffs’ claim for waiting time penalties under California
`Labor Code §§ 201-203. Plaintiffs’ PAGA claims are derivative of their EPA and waiting time
`claims.
`The Settlement resolves these claims by: (1) creating a non-reversionary monetary fund
`of $118 million, to redress past harms; and (2) providing for substantial programmatic relief, to
`
`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`1 A list of the 226 Covered Positions is attached as Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement. See
`Dermody Decl., Ex. 1. Following the class certification notice and opt-out period that concluded
`in August 2021, this case had 14,077 Class Members. The Class size has grown since then, as
`Google has since hired additional female employees in California in the Covered Positions. Id.,
`¶ 10.
`
`
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`- 6 -
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`prevent future harms. This programmatic relief includes engagement of independent third-party
`experts selected jointly by the Parties to evaluate how Google might improve both its annual pay
`equity process and its processes for setting level at hire, as well as an external monitor to oversee
`Google’s good faith efforts to address the experts’ recommendations. These Settlement terms
`were realized after four and a half years of extensive, hard-fought litigation. The Parties litigated
`two demurrers and motions to strike, Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, Google’s petition
`for a writ of mandate, and numerous discovery disputes. Discovery was voluminous, including
`more than 168,000 pages of documents, 19 depositions, and extensive expert analyses. A March
`2019 attempt at mediation was unsuccessful, and the Parties were preparing for a January 23,
`2023 trial when the Settlement was reached after a second mediation in March 2022.
`As set forth herein, the Settlement satisfies all elements for approval. First, the Settlement
`is fair and reasonable in light of the risks and costs of continued litigation, and provides adequate,
`meaningful, and prompt relief to the Class. Second, the proposed Settlement notice procedures
`and related forms fully comport with due process and adequately apprise the Class Members of
`their rights. Third, and lastly, a final fairness hearing may be scheduled to allow Class Members
`an opportunity to be heard regarding the Settlement and to give it finality. By this motion,
`Plaintiffs therefore respectfully request that the Court: (1) grant preliminary approval of the
`Settlement; (2) approve the proposed form and plan of notice; and (3) schedule a hearing on final
`approval of the Settlement.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on September 14, 2017, alleging claims for discrimination
`in pay, leveling, job channeling, and promotions on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of
`all women employed by Google in California at any time in the previous four years.2 On October
`16, 2017 Google demurred and moved to strike the class allegations. On December 4, 2017, the
`
`
`2 On the same day, Plaintiffs timely noticed the Labor and Workforce Development Agency
`(“LWDA”) of their PAGA claim. Decl. of James M. Finberg (“Finberg Decl.”), submitted
`herewith, ¶ 16. On June 7, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a stipulation and proposed order granting leave
`to file a Second Amended Complaint, which adds a cause of action under PAGA, and will notify
`the LWDA of same when this amendment is filed. Id., ¶ 17.
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`Court sustained Google’s demurrer but granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint, and
`denied Google’s motion to strike as moot. Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on
`January 3, 2018, limiting the proposed class to women in the 226 Covered Positions. On
`February 6, 2018, Google again demurred and moved to strike the class allegations. On March
`27, 2018, the Court overruled Google’s demurrer and denied Google’s motion to strike.
`The Parties engaged in three years of discovery practice, including litigation of numerous
`discovery disputes regarding, inter alia, production of: certain fields in Google’s personnel data;
`internal complaints of gender discrimination at Google; Google’s internal pay, performance, and
`promotion gender equity audits, and Google’s claims of privilege to same; and appropriate
`custodians and search terms for location of relevant Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”),
`among other issues. Dermody Decl., ¶ 23. The discovery record created and reviewed through
`this process was voluminous: from Google, 60 separate document productions totaling 163,491
`pages; from Plaintiffs, 9 separate document productions totaling 3,787 pages; and between the
`Parties, 19 depositions in total, including one from each of the four Named Plaintiffs, 11 from
`corporate representatives of Google, and 4 from the Parties’ experts. Id., ¶ 24.
`Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on July 21, 2020, which Google
`opposed. Plaintiffs did not move to certify their claims for discrimination in job channeling or
`promotions, but only their claims for discrimination in pay (with attendant waiting time penalties)
`and leveling. On May 27, 2021, this Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in its
`entirety. Google then filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal,
`which Plaintiffs opposed and which was ultimately denied on August 21, 2021. Thereafter, the
`Parties negotiated and submitted a pre-trial schedule, approved by the Court on October 18, 2021,
`that provided for approximately six months of additional discovery followed by merits expert
`reports, motions to strike expert reports, pre-trial exchanges and briefings, and a trial date of
`January 23, 2023. The Court also ordered the Parties to mediate by March 30, 2022. The Parties
`then continued onto merits discovery, which included an aggressive negotiation of custodians and
`search terms for additional merits ESI, and prepared for additional depositions to take place in
`April 2022. Dermody Decl., ¶ 24. Google continued to produce documents on a rolling basis,
`
`
`- 8 -
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`
`
`
`

`

`and made an additional 3 productions totaling 813 pages. Id.
`Merits fact discovery was nearing completion when the Parties attended an in-person
`mediation on March 28, 2022 with mediator Mike Reiss of the firm Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.
`Mediator Reiss was well-qualified to mediate this case, having worked as a trial lawyer for the
`Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, law professor at the University of Southern
`California, employment lawyer in private practice, and employment mediator for over a decade.
`The Parties were unable to reach agreement at the mediation, but continued negotiations
`thereafter via telephone conference. After two months of continued arm’s-length negotiations,
`the Parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding on June 2, 2022.
`Plaintiffs now move for preliminary approval of the Settlement, which Google does not
`oppose. Dermody Decl., ¶ 8. Plaintiffs are simultaneously notifying LWDA of the proposed
`Settlement. Finberg Decl., ¶ 18.
`
`III. OVERVIEW OF THE SETTLEMENT
`The complete terms of the Settlement are set forth in the Settlement Agreement. See
`Dermody Decl., Ex. 1. The essential terms are summarized below.
`
`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`A.
`Class Definitions
`The Classes are the same as those certified by the Court on May 27, 2021, minus the 140
`individuals who opted out of the Classes through the class certification notice period that ended in
`August 2021. Dermody Decl., ¶ 9.
`The EPA claim class (“EPA Claim Class”) is defined as all women employed by Google
`in a Covered Position in California at any time from September 14, 2013 through the date on
`which the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, who did not opt out of the
`certified class in this action. Settlement § III.A.8.
`The FEHA/leveling claim class (“FEHA Claim Subclass”) is defined as all women
`employed by Google in a Covered Position in California at any time from September 14, 2013
`through the date on which the Court grants preliminary approval of the Settlement, excluding
`campus hires and women hired after August 28, 2017, who did not opt out of the certified class in
`this action. Settlement § III.A.10.
`
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`- 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
`27
`28
`
`B. Monetary Relief
`The Settlement establishes a Total Settlement Amount of $118 million. Settlement
`Settlement § III.A.30. After deducting funds for PAGA payment, plaintiff service awards,
`attorneys’ fees and costs, and settlement administration—as enumerated below—the remainder of
`the Total Settlement Amount (the “Net Settlement Fund”) will be allocated to each Class Member
`who does not opt out of the Classes through the Settlement notice process described below (the
`“Participating Class Members”) as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`All EPA Claim Class Members hired on or before December 31, 2021
`shall receive a minimum payment of $500 (reduced to a minimum
`payment of $250 for those employed fewer than six months as of the date
`of preliminary approval); and all EPA Claim Class Members hired on or
`after January 1, 2022 shall receive a flat sum of $250. Settlement, Ex. C
`(Plan of Allocation).
`Of the Remaining Net Settlement Fund, forty percent shall be paid to
`Participating Class Members in the EPA Claim Class based on the
`relative percentage each EPA Claim Class Member contributed to the
`alleged damages for the EPA Claim Class using the four-step process and
`statistical model described in the Plan of Allocation. Settlement
`Agreement, Ex. C.
`Sixty percent of the Remaining Net Settlement Fund shall be paid to
`Class Members in the FEHA Claim Subclass based on the relative
`percentage each FEHA Claim Subclass Member contributed to the
`alleged damages for the FEHA Claim Subclass using the process and
`statistical model described in the Plan of Allocation. Settlement, Ex. C.
`This allocation of the Net Settlement Fund between the EPA Claim Class and the FEHA Claim
`Subclass is based on the relative estimated Class exposure associated with each Claim. Dermody
`Decl., ¶ 11. Specifically, Plaintiffs estimate different potential exposures depending on the type
`of claim, with the EPA claim constituting about 40 percent of potential damages and the FEHA
`Claim constituting about 60 percent of potential damages, depending on the assumptions used in
`the model, which the parties vigorously dispute.3 Id. Google, on the other hand, disputes that any
`damages arise due to these claims.
`Subject to Court approval, the following amounts will be deducted from the Total
`Settlement Amount prior to allocation, to create the Net Settlement Fund: $1 million will be
`
`3.
`
`
`3 Depending on the model, the alleged EPA Claim constitutes about 19 to 57 percent of the
`overall potential damages, and the alleged FEHA claim constitutes about 43 to 81 percent.
`
`
`- 10 -
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`deducted to resolve the PAGA Claims of the PAGA Group (the “PAGA Payment”)4; service
`awards to the Named Plaintiffs of $225,000 in total (the “Class Representative Service Award
`Payments”): $50,000 for Ms. Wisuri, Ms. Lamar, and Ms. Pease, and $75,000 for the lead
`Plaintiff, Ms. Ellis; and attorneys’ fees of 25 percent of the Total Settlement Amount5 and
`reimbursement of expenses advanced by Class Counsel not to exceed $1.5 million (collectively,
`the “Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment”); and costs of settlement administration.
`Settlement § III.A.15.
`The Total Settlement Amount will be distributed according to the following schedule: the
`Settlement Administrator will provide Google with wire transfer information within five days
`after the Settlement is finally approved by this Court; Google will transfer the Total Settlement
`Amount to the Settlement Administrator via wire transfer within 60 days of receipt of the wire
`transfer information; and the Net Settlement Fund, PAGA Payment, Class Representative Service
`Award Payments, and Class Counsel Fees and Expenses Payment will be distributed promptly
`after the Settlement becomes effective, pursuant to the terms of the Settlement.6 Settlement §
`IV.A, Ex. C.
`After 45 days, the Settlement Administrator will make multiple efforts by telephone, text,
`email, and U.S. mail to ensure that any Class Members who have not cashed checks for their
`share of the Net Settlement Fund do so. Settlement § IX.I. Checks will become void 180 days
`
`
`4 The Settlement Administrator will pay 25 percent ($250,000) of the PAGA Payment to Class
`Counsel as attorneys’ fees, subject to Court approval. Settlement § IX.E. Of the remaining
`$750,000, the Settlement Administrator will pay 75 percent ($562,500) to the LWDA as its share
`of the Settlement attributable to civil penalties under PAGA (the “LWDA Payment”), and 25
`percent ($187,500) to the PAGA Group, that is, all EPA Class Members who worked for Google
`from one year prior to Plaintiffs’ filing of the Second Amended Complaint containing PAGA
`Claims through the date the Settlement is preliminarily approved. Id.
`5 These fees will be inclusive of the attorneys’ fees on the PAGA Payment.
`6 The Settlement will become effective after it has been finally approved by this Court and either
`(1) the California Court of Appeal has rendered a final judgment affirming the Court’s final
`approval without material modification and the date for further appeal has passed without further
`appeal; (2) the California Court of Appeal has rendered a final judgment affirming the Court’s
`final approval without material modification and the further appeals have been resolved without
`material modification of the final approval order; (3) the applicable date for seeking appellate
`review of the Court’s final approval of the Settlement has passed without a timely appeal or
`request for review having been made; or (4) upon the date the settlement is finally approved if no
`objections to the Settlement have been filed. Settlement § III.A.7.
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`2420379.4
`MEM. OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ISO UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL; CASE NO. CGC-17-561299
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`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
`27
`28
`
`after mailing. Id. If after 180 days from the mailing date the amount of uncashed checks is equal
`to or more than 1.5 percent of the Total Settlement Amount, then the Settlement Administrator
`will send out a second round of distributions in proportion to the first round. Id. If the amount of
`uncashed checks is less than 1.5 percent of the Total Settlement Amount, then the uncashed
`checks will be sent to cy pres recipient Equal Rights Advocates, which works to advance the
`rights of women. Id.
`
`C.
`Programmatic Relief
`The Settlement also includes significant programmatic relief addressing the pay equity
`and leveling allegations underlying Plaintiffs’ certified EPA and FEHA Claims. Specifically,
`Google commits to performing the following at Google’s expense beyond the Total Settlement
`Amount:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Hire an expert Industrial Organizational (IO) psychologist to review its process for
`determining level at hire, and make recommendations on that process, to the extent
`there are opportunities to make the process more equitable, including with respect
`to gender equity. Settlement § VII.B.
`Hire an expert labor economist to review Google’s annual pay equity audits and
`make recommendations on that process, to the extent there are opportunities to
`more accurately analyze whether employees are paid equitably for comparable
`work, including with respect to gender equity. Settlement § VII.B.
`Consider the recommendations of the ex