Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 1 of 103
`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2
`Filed 04/15/25
`Page1of 103
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT B
`EXHIBIT B
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 2 of 103
`
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`1(212) 318-6046
`kennethgage@paulhastings.com
`1(212) 318-6267
`saratomezsko@paulhastings.com
`
`May 29, 2024
`
`VIA EEOC RESPONDENT PORTAL
`
`David L. Reinman
`U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`New York District Office
`33 Whitehall Street
`New York, NY 10004
`david.reinman@eeoc.gov
`
`Re:
`
`Dear Mr. Reinman:
`
`We represent Respondent Google LLC (“Google”) in the above-referenced matter. Google respectfully
`submits this position statement in response to the Charge filed by Ulku Rowe with the U.S. Equal
`Employment Opportunity Commission on April 11, 2024 (her “Charge”).1
`
`Ulku Rowe v. Google LLC, EEOC Charge No. 520-2024-04484
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`I.
`
`For at least three years prior to her Charge, Ms. Rowe’s job performance as a Technical Director in Google’s
`Cloud division was underwhelming relative to her peers. The Technical Director role in the Office of the
`Chief Technology Officer (“OCTO”) at Google Cloud is unique; it was an experimental role conceived in
`2016 so Google could compete with other cloud providers like Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure.
`Google intended the role to evolve—and it did—over time to meet the shifting needs of customers and
`technical advances in cloud technology and artificial intelligence (“A.I.”). Ms. Rowe, however, has not kept
`pace with the evolving nature of the role and the expectations Google Cloud places on its Technical
`Directors.
`
`Rather than do what is expected of her and others in the Technical Director role, Ms. Rowe continued to
`perform only the aspects of the job she wanted to do. Notably, Google clearly communicated shifts in
`Google Cloud priorities away from external speaking engagements towards a focus on engineering impact
`and demonstrated technical contributions. Despite this, Ms. Rowe has not changed her approach to the
`job. While her colleagues adapted to these changes, there is a well-documented record of Ms. Rowe’s
`refusal to refocus her efforts on engineering and technical work, in favor of her continued pursuit of external
`speaking engagements.
`
`
`1 Any allegation in the Charge not expressly admitted in this position statement is denied. This position
`statement is based upon the facts as Google currently understands them, and is provided in the spirit of
`cooperation for the sole purpose of assisting the EEOC with its neutral and non-adversarial investigation of
`the Charge. Google in no way waives its right to present new or additional facts or arguments based upon
`subsequently acquired information or evidence. Further, this position statement, although believed to be
`true and correct in all respects, does not constitute an affidavit, and is not intended to be used as evidence
`of any kind in any EEOC or court proceeding. Because of the sensitive nature of the information included
`in this position statement, Google respectfully requests that the EEOC maintain the confidentiality of this
`material to the fullest extent provided by law.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 3 of 103
`
`
`
`
`May 29, 2024
`Page 2
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`Nevertheless, Ms. Rowe’s supervisors encouraged and supported her by suggesting pathways to
`demonstrate technical thought leadership in line with Google’s expectations, and connecting her with
`resources to help her succeed. Ms. Rowe barely responded, however, as if it were unnecessary—as if
`Google’s evolving expectations of OCTO Technical Directors did not apply to her.
`
`In late 2022, having seen practically no evidence of any work product from Ms. Rowe from the preceding
`eight months, her new supervisor held a support check-in to reiterate Google’s expectations and ask Ms.
`Rowe for evidence of the work she was doing. Thereafter, at the beginning of 2023, Ms. Rowe provided
`her supervisor with some proof that she was working. So, her supervisor gave her the benefit of the doubt
`and gave Ms. Rowe a performance rating of 3 out of 5 for 2022, based primarily on feedback from a
`colleague that Ms. Rowe had contributed to (but had not led) an important engineering initiative.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s effort proved to be minimal and short-lived. As Google Cloud (and the world) focused attention
`and energy on A.I.,2 Ms. Rowe’s peers demonstrated an appropriate sense of urgency to compete
`successfully in this burgeoning space. Ms. Rowe did not. Despite having Google’s support for a project
`concerning the responsible use of A.I., she hardly even advanced the project, showing no evidence that
`she responded to feedback provided to her. Seeing no progress and no meaningful collaboration (with
`engineering or otherwise), her supervisor again asked Ms. Rowe what she was working on in early July
`2023. In response, Ms. Rowe shockingly asserted that “nothing I’m working on is time sensitive,” and
`announced she would be taking a six-week vacation starting immediately, expecting to return to work in
`late August 2023 (after the trial on her initial claims for pay and gender discrimination was scheduled to
`conclude). On August 21, 2023, when the trial was postponed to October 4, 2023, Ms. Rowe applied for
`and was granted an extended, paid leave of absence from Google.
`
`Google has been patient and fair with Ms. Rowe. The Technical Director role in OCTO is a very senior
`position that carries high expectations. Ms. Rowe’s peers have been working hard and contributing much
`towards Google Cloud’s business objectives, and a set of objectives and key results (“OKRs”) jointly
`established by the Technical Directors and Google Cloud’s CTO, William Grannis, each year at a
`department offsite.3 Ms. Rowe has not. Ms. Rowe’s peers create a substantial number of artifacts (i.e.,
`documents demonstrating the work they are doing in collaboration with others). Ms. Rowe has not. Ms.
`Rowe’s peers attend team meetings to share ideas with one another and help the team achieve the
`ambitious engineering and technical goals that help Google Cloud stay cutting edge and relevant in the A.I.
`space. Ms. Rowe did not, even before she took six weeks of vacation followed by an extended protected
`leave. As described in this letter, Ms. Rowe’s rating of “Not Enough Impact” for the period of January through
`July of 2023 is unsurprising, given her minimal contributions and repeated unwillingness to work towards
`the expectations Google Cloud clearly communicated to her and her peers. The rating and related decisions
`
`2 Much media attention at the time focused on Google’s competitors in the area of A.I. See, e.g., Cade
`Metz, The New Chatbots Could Change the World. Can You Trust Them?, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 11, 2022)
`(available at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/10/technology/ai-chat-bot-chatgpt.html); Cade Metz,
`OpenAI Plans to Up the Ante in Tech’s A.I. Race, N.Y. Times (Mar. 14, 2023) (available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/technology/openai-gpt4-chatgpt.html). Media coverage also reflected
`the urgency around developing responsible uses of A.I. See, e.g., Kevin Roose, Inside the White-Hot Center
`of A.I. Doomerism, N.Y. Times (July 11, 2023) (available at https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/11/technolo
`gy/anthropic-ai-claude-chatbot.html).
`3 The offsite to establish OKRs for 2024 occurred in October of 2023. Ms. Rowe declined the invitation to
`attend that offsite in March 2023, well before she knew the trial on her initial claims would be scheduled for
`that date.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 4 of 103
`
`
`
`
`May 29, 2024
`Page 3
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`concerning Ms. Rowe’s compensation, as well as more recent decisions concerning her employment, were
`made for legitimate business reasons. None of these decisions were made because of any alleged
`protected characteristics or activity.
`
`The claims in her Charge are meritless. We respectfully request that the EEOC dismiss Ms. Rowe’s claims
`and issue a No Reasonable Cause determination.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`II.
`
`
`A.
`
`Google is committed to equal employment opportunity.
`
`
`Google is firmly committed to “providing a positive environment where everyone can be a successful
`contributor.” (Exh. A.) Google’s Policy on Harassment, Discrimination, Retaliation, Standards of Conduct,
`and Workplace Concerns “prohibits discrimination” based on “sex . . . gender . . . physical or mental
`disability, medical condition . . . [and] any other basis prohibited under federal, state, or local law.” (Id.)
`Google strictly prohibits retaliation for engaging in conduct protected under the law, including but not limited
`to “testifying or assisting in a proceeding involving [discrimination] under any federal, state or local anti-
`discrimination law.” (Id.) Google also maintains robust leave policies that meet or exceed all applicable
`legal requirements.
`
`
`B.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s work at Google.
`
`
`Ms. Rowe joined Google Cloud in March 2017 as a Level 8 (“L8”)4 Technical Director in OCTO. At the time,
`this was a new role designed to increase adoption of Google Cloud’s products. One of the founders of
`OCTO and current CTO of Google Cloud, Mr. Grannis, initially conceived of the role as a blend of customer
`interaction and relationship-building, tangible engineering contributions to Google Cloud’s products, and
`external speaking engagements (“evangelism”) to promote Google Cloud as a thought leader in the
`industry.
`
`
`1.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s work in 2017.
`
`
`When Ms. Rowe joined Google Cloud, she reported directly to Mr. Grannis. For Q3 2017, Mr. Grannis gave
`Ms. Rowe a performance rating of 3 out of 5, praising her for being a capable ambassador to Google’s
`customers in the financial services industry. (Exh. B.) He suggested, however, that Ms. Rowe balance her
`customer-facing responsibilities with other important aspects of the role, specifically, “Product/Eng[ineering]
`influence.” (Id.) Ms. Rowe agreed, suggesting in her self-assessment for that quarter that she should
`demonstrate “[m]ore focus on engineering.” (Id.)
`
`In 2017, Ms. Rowe earned a base salary of $290,000, a sign-on bonus of $250,000, an additional bonus
`target of 30% of her base salary, and a generous two-part equity grant.
`
`
`
`4 Google assigns each employee a “job level” at hire, from L1 (entry level) to L9 (the highest director-level
`position below Vice President). Google determines an employee’s level based on several factors, including
`skills, experience, education, and interview performance. Generally (but not necessarily), compensation
`increases with level.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 5 of 103
`
`
`
`
`May 29, 2024
`Page 4
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`Ms. Rowe’s work in 2018.
`
`2.
`
`In 2018, Google Cloud stood up a go-to-market function that largely became responsible for the evangelism
`and customer-facing aspects of the Technical Director role as it was originally conceived. As a result, in
`mid-2018, Ms. Rowe and several others in OCTO were transferred to the go-to-market area within Google
`Cloud to serve as the technical subject matter expert for client-facing engagements. There, Ms. Rowe
`continued to focus primarily on customer and market engagement instead of engineering. Mr. Grannis
`remained responsible for Ms. Rowe’s performance ratings and feedback, and in Q1 and Q3 2018,5 Mr.
`Grannis rated Ms. Rowe a 3 out of 5. Mr. Grannis commended Ms. Rowe’s external engagement but
`encouraged her to harness what she was learning in the market to actually “drive impact” in “a specific area
`of the [Google Cloud] platform/technology stack.” (Exhs. C and D.)
`
`In 2018, Ms. Rowe earned $738,000 in total compensation, consisting of a base salary of $295,000, a
`bonus of $125,000, and equity valued at $318,000.6
`
`
`3.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s work in 2019.
`
`
`In 2019, Ms. Rowe expressed a clear preference to return to OCTO, the more technical and engineering-
`focused organization compared to the go-to-market function in Google Cloud. Mr. Grannis welcomed Ms.
`Rowe back, and offered her the opportunity to work on one of Google Cloud’s most exciting and critical
`priorities, hybrid cloud. Instead of working on hybrid cloud, Ms. Rowe claimed her voluntary move back to
`OCTO was a “demotion” because she believed she had been hired to promote Google Cloud within financial
`services. So, that is what she did instead of focusing on engineering work. Mr. Grannis gave Ms. Rowe a 3
`out of 5 performance rating for both Q1 and Q3 2019. He observed that Ms. Rowe “[s]pends most [of her]
`time representing Google externally and with financial services clients,” but that there was “no discernable
`[engineering] product” attributable to Ms. Rowe. (Exhs. E and F.) Ms. Rowe did not even bother to complete
`her self-assessment that year.
`
`In 2019, Ms. Rowe earned $753,000 in total compensation, consisting of a base salary of $310,000, a
`bonus of $125,000, and equity valued at $318,000.7
`
`
`4.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s work in 2020.
`
`
`Despite consistent feedback that she should focus more on engineering, Ms. Rowe continued to prioritize
`customer-facing and public speaking engagements in 2020. Her misalignment in priorities is well-
`documented. A peer, for example, observed that he “would love if [Ms. Rowe] had deeper and direct
`engagement with product strategy and engineering.” (Exh. G.) In her self-assessment that year, Ms. Rowe
`did not even identify engineering as an area of intended focus. Instead, when asked to describe an area of
`
`5 Until mid-2022, Google evaluated employee performance twice per year. Since mid-2022, it evaluates
`employee performance once per year.
`6 Google calculates total annual compensation as consisting of (1) base salary, (2) bonus (earned that year,
`but paid the following year), and (c) equity (earned that year, but paid the following year).
`7 In September 2019, Ms. Rowe filed a Charge with the EEOC and subsequently sued Google in the U.S.
`District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting claims under federal, state, and local laws
`(the “Action”). Ms. Rowe ultimately narrowed her claims to those under New York Labor Law § 194 (New
`York State’s fair pay statute) and the New York City Human Rights Law. The decision to award the bonus
`and the equity was finalized in November 2019, after Rowe filed the Action.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 6 of 103
`
`
`
`
`May 29, 2024
`Page 5
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`5.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s work in 2021.
`
`improvement, she stated only that she had “raised her hand” for another role and was “waiting on next
`steps.” (Id.) Mr. Grannis gave Ms. Rowe a rating of 3 out of 5 again in Q3 2020,8 and this time Ms. Rowe
`identified no areas of potential self-improvement. In her written evaluation, Mr. Grannis reminded Ms. Rowe
`yet again to take “opportunities for increasing impact with engineering.” (Exh. H (emphasis added).) In other
`words, Google consistently gave Ms. Rowe the benefit of the doubt, consistently rating her a 3 out of 5 for
`doing part of the job well: the increasingly less critical evangelism aspect of the Technical Director role.
`
`In 2020, a year that saw significant unemployment and wage decreases due to the COVID-19 pandemic,
`Ms. Rowe earned $777,000 in total compensation, consisting of a base salary of $324,000, a bonus of
`$122,000, and equity valued at $331,000.
`
`
`
`Each year, the Technical Directors in OCTO come together at a departmental offsite with Mr. Grannis to
`share ideas and jointly establish the OKRs for the following year. In 2021, OCTO’s OKRs for the Technical
`Director role at Ms. Rowe’s level clearly emphasized an even greater shift towards engineering
`contributions and impact, and de-emphasized direct interaction with customers and external speaking
`engagements. This further shift made perfect sense given Google Cloud’s now robust go-to-market
`function. Accordingly, OCTO’s OKRs for Technical Directors defined the role and its priorities as: (a)
`technology strategy (approximately 70%); (b) collaborative innovation (e.g., customer interaction)
`(approximately 20%); and (c) market shaping (e.g., speaking engagements, or evangelism) (approximately
`10%). (Exh. I.)
`
`Ms. Rowe’s approach to her work remained unchanged in 2021, however. Mr. Grannis rated Ms. Rowe a
`3 out of 5 for both Q1 and Q3 2021, observing that she demonstrated “[n]o clear . . . sponsorship of complex
`. . . projects.” (Exhs. J and K.) In other words, by prioritizing customer interaction and evangelism, Ms.
`Rowe was only performing 30% of her job.
`
`That year, OCTO’s Emerging Themes program was in full swing. Technical Directors were encouraged to
`detect patterns in strategic priorities of Google Cloud customers across industries, and pitch to the CEO of
`Google Cloud, Thomas Kurian, the importance of addressing those market needs and how to translate
`those initiatives into Google’s cloud product roadmaps. In her performance review that year, Mr. Grannis
`noted no “progress [or] updates” on an Emerging Theme for Ms. Rowe, because Ms. Rowe showed no
`evidence of having selected or advanced such a project. (Id.)
`
`This was the last full year in which Mr. Grannis directly supervised Ms. Rowe. When asked at trial in the
`Action whether Ms. Rowe “made any significant engineering contributions in OCTO” during her time there,
`Mr. Grannis responded under oath, “No.” (Exh. L.)
`
`In 2021, Ms. Rowe earned $858,000 in total compensation, consisting of a base salary of $333,000, a
`bonus of $125,000, and equity valued at $400,000.
`
`
`
`8 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Google did not assign formal performance ratings to employees for Q1
`2020.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 7 of 103
`
`
`
`
`May 29, 2024
`Page 6
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`6.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s work in 2022.
`
`
`In early 2022, OCTO had grown sufficiently large such that Mr. Grannis could no longer directly supervise
`all Technical Directors. As a result, Google reorganized OCTO to create three new managerial positions.
`Technical Directors Jennifer Bennett, Antoine Larmanjat, and Patricia Florissi were selected for those new
`managerial roles, and became responsible for supervising the work of their fellow Technical Directors and
`other team members. In April 2022, Ms. Rowe and two other Technical Directors in the U.S. began reporting
`to Ms. Florissi.9 Ms. Bennett and Mr. Larmanjat each had teams of Technical Directors reporting to them
`as well, and two other Technical Directors in OCTO, Kawaljit Gandhi and Eric Schenk, continued in their
`management roles.
`
`Around the same time, OCTO completed the shift towards a focus on engineering, and removed market
`shaping or evangelism from its OKRs entirely. (Exh. M.) Yet, throughout 2022, Ms. Rowe continued to
`devote time to speaking engagements at the expense of engineering work. Her performance during 2022
`was underwhelming, too, and her engineering contributions were negligible. For example, in or around
`September 2022, Ms. Rowe proposed an Emerging Theme, “Trusted A.I.,”10 that would analyze and
`mitigate the risks of A.I. technology and accelerate its adoption among Google Cloud’s customers. Ms.
`Florissi was highly receptive. She and others provided Ms. Rowe immediate, constructive feedback on her
`initial proposal for Trusted A.I. as an Emerging Theme, offering comments to strengthen Ms. Rowe’s
`proposal. In the meantime, in or around October 2022, Mr. Gandhi reported that in consultation with Mr.
`Kurian, Google Cloud would prioritize development of A.I. technology, and he called for an “A.I. growth
`plan” in the near-term.11 Ms. Florissi encouraged Mr. Gandhi to reach out to Ms. Rowe to leverage her
`existing Trusted AI Emerging Theme proposal, which Mr. Gandhi did in October 2022.
`
`In November 2022, however, when Ms. Florissi asked Ms. Rowe about the progress of the Trusted A.I.
`Emerging Theme, Ms. Rowe responded only that she “needed help.” It did not appear that Ms. Rowe had
`addressed the feedback she received from Ms. Florissi and others in September 2022, which noted that
`the proposal presented a good idea but required more rigor on the technical research, feedback from peers
`with subject matter expertise in A.I., and perspectives from customers. In response, Ms. Florissi suggested
`that Ms. Rowe look at work by her colleagues as examples of how technology could be applied to address
`some of the issues around the topic of Trusted A.I. It was not until January 2023 that Ms. Rowe began
`collaborating with some of those colleagues to revise her Emerging Themes document. In the meantime,
`Ms. Rowe inexplicably failed to attend meetings Mr. Gandhi scheduled to discuss A.I. initiatives, despite
`the lack of conflicting appointments on her calendar.
`
`These were not the only meetings Ms. Rowe missed. She regularly skipped weekly team meetings in 2022,
`including on July 21, July 28, August 18, September 1, October 19, October 26, November 2, November
`16, and November 30, 2022. She also regularly took time off without recording it on Google’s internal
`tracking system, including from June 16–25, October 6–19, November 1–4, 11, 18, and 30, 2022. No other
`members of Ms. Florissi’s team missed meetings with this frequency or took time off without recording it as
`expected.
`
`
`9 Ms. Florissi also supervised at least one Technical Director based in the United Kingdom.
`10 The Emerging Theme was referred to variously over time as “Trusted A.I.” or “Responsible A.I.”
`11 Generative A.I. has since become a technological phenomenon and OCTO’s top priority. See, e.g., Nico
`Grant, Google Takes the Next Step in Its A.I. Evolution, N.Y. TIMES (May 14, 2024) (available at
`https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/14/technology/google-artificial-intelligence-products.html).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 8 of 103
`
`
`
`
`May 29, 2024
`Page 7
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`7.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s work in 2023.
`
`Ms. Florissi held a support check-in with Ms. Rowe in December 2022, expressing (like Mr. Grannis had
`previously) that she expected more from Ms. Rowe.12 Ms. Florissi made clear to Ms. Rowe that she
`expected her to create artifacts demonstrating her progress towards OKRs for the role and to demonstrate
`generally the work she was doing, both on her Emerging Theme project and more generally. In response,
`Ms. Rowe produced a document reviewing some points on Trusted A.I. by the first week of January 2023.
`And although Ms. Florissi had not seen any artifacts reflecting Ms. Rowe’s work on Climate Risk Analytics
`(another project within Ms. Rowe’s purview), Ms. Florissi nevertheless gave Ms. Rowe the benefit of the
`doubt when setting Ms. Rowe’s performance rating, based solely on feedback from one of Ms. Rowe’s
`colleagues that Ms. Rowe had contributed to (but not led) an important project. Accordingly, Ms. Rowe
`earned a 3 out of 5 rating for her work in 2022. (Exh. N.) Ms. Florissi considered even this lukewarm rating
`to be generous.
`
`That year, Ms. Rowe earned $940,667 in total compensation, consisting of a base salary of $345,000, a
`bonus of $129,000, and equity valued at $466,667.13
`
`
`
`Ms. Rowe’s underperformance continued into 2023.14 For example, Ms. Rowe has made no changes to the
`Trusted A.I. “review” document since February 2023. Ms. Rowe collaborated with a colleague and
`contributed on another document in early 2023, but made no discernable progress on the document
`thereafter. By June 2023, Ms. Rowe had produced only two artifacts that year. By contrast, other team
`members produced several artifacts per month.
`
`In June 2023, Ms. Rowe took two weeks off to vacation in Portugal. After her return, on June 29, 2023, Ms.
`Florissi held a mid-year check-in with Ms. Rowe, as she did with every member of her team. At the time,
`Ms. Florissi expressed disappointment that Ms. Rowe had not made more progress in delivering
`documentation supporting customer projects related to A.I. technology. She acknowledged that Ms. Rowe
`had made some progress year to date, but she expressed clear expectations that Ms. Rowe actually deliver
`documents that she had authored for each of her projects.
`
`Ms. Rowe had no apparent intention of meeting Ms. Florissi’s and Google Cloud’s expectations. On July
`12, 2023—less than two weeks after the Court issued an order scheduling a trial date of August 14, 2023
`in the Action—Ms. Rowe informed Ms. Florissi that she would be taking an additional six weeks of vacation,
`beginning immediately. Ms. Rowe attempted to excuse the short notice by claiming that “nothing that I’m
`working on is time sensitive.”15 (Exh. O.) Ms. Florissi did not object to Ms. Rowe’s vacation, but reminded
`her that Google “typically ask[s] for advance notice ahead of vacation.” (Id.) Ms. Florissi also gently
`corrected Ms. Rowe regarding the urgency of her work, stating: “I do consider our work to be time sensitive.”
`
`12 Sometime after Ms. Rowe began reporting to her, Ms. Florissi became aware of the Action.
`Unsurprisingly, and given Google’s clear policy against discrimination and retaliation, Ms. Florissi obtained
`legal advice before conducting a support check-in and offering any critical feedback to Ms. Rowe.
`13 The Court, on October 14, 2022, set the trial for the Action for January 2023. Google’s decision to award
`Ms. Rowe’s bonus and equity for 2022 was made after the trial was scheduled. The January 2023 trial did
`not proceed in January 2023, and would be postponed three additional times.
`14 On March 31, 2023, the Court rescheduled the trial for August 14, 2023.
`15 To put this comment into perspective, a Level 8 Technical Director, like Ms. Rowe, is just two levels away
`from Vice President. It is a senior position with significant expectations to remain at the cutting edge of
`technological developments in the industry, as reflected in the compensation paid for the role.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 9 of 103
`
`
`
`
`May 29, 2024
`Page 8
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`8.
`
`Google’s review of Ms. Rowe’s work in 2023.
`
`(Id.)16 At the time, OCTO was urgently pursuing A.I. development; Ms. Rowe apparently did not share that
`sense of urgency.
`
`In her Charge, Ms. Rowe attempts to characterize her protected leave as commencing in July 2023, but
`that is a misrepresentation. Ms. Rowe was on vacation for six weeks, from mid-July 2023 through the end
`of August 2023. It was not until August 21, 2023, one week prior to her scheduled return from vacation, and
`after the Court postponed the trial in her Action to October 10, 2023, that Ms. Rowe requested (and was
`granted) short-term disability leave through November 28, 2023.17 On November 27, 2023, she requested
`(and was granted) an extension of her leave through February 27, 2024.
`
`
`
`In February 2024, Ms. Florissi rated Ms. Rowe’s performance for 2023 “Not Enough Impact” (or “NE”). That
`rating was based solely on Ms. Rowe’s demonstrated performance (or lack thereof) from January 1 through
`July 10, 2023, before Ms. Rowe’s extended vacations followed by protected leave.
`
`In the written evaluation, Ms. Florissi observed that Ms. Rowe showed “no indication of owning [or] leading
`innovation[,] technical [or] business strategies to differentiate . . . Google Cloud.” (Exh. P.) There was also
`“no indication” that Ms. Rowe was “leading[,] influencing [or] shaping technical projects[,] vision [or] opinion.”
`(Id.) Ms. Florissi lamented that the need to produce artifacts “was made clear during the Q4 2022 support
`check-in,” but the only two documents Ms. Rowe created up to the first half of 2023 “do not seem to have
`been updated [by Ms. Rowe] since February/March 2023,” three months before Ms. Rowe left for her first
`of two extended vacations. (Id.) Ms. Florissi also observed that Ms. Rowe demonstrated “limited
`collaboration with other OCTO team members . . . and limited (if any) engagement on OCTO team
`meetings/community.” (Id.)
`
`
`Ms. Florissi also obtained feedback from her peers, the other managers in OCTO, who had visibility into
`Ms. Rowe’s work as a member of OCTO. They agreed with Ms. Florissi’s assessment. Mr. Gandhi
`expressed frustration that Ms. Rowe once “requested a meeting reschedule” regarding Trusted A.I. “but
`ultimately did not attend . . . .” (Id.) He also observed that Ms. Rowe “neither confirmed nor declined
`attendance” for a critical customer meeting, requiring “adjustments and hindering smooth interaction.” (Id.)
`
`Ms. Bennett observed that there was no evidence of Ms. Rowe “advancing multiple complex projects,” as
`was expected of her. (Id.) Ms. Bennett also saw “[n]o evidence of [Ms. Rowe] driving forward-thinking and
`innovative approaches” to “anticipate and address challenges [and] opportunities for Google Cloud.” (Id.)
`At most, there was “[s]ome evidence of early ideas,” but “with no action taken on those early ideas to
`achieve impact.” (Id.) She also observed Ms. Rowe’s lack of “teamwork within OCTO.” (Id.)
`
`
`
`16 On July 25, 2023, while Ms. Rowe was on vacation, the Court adjourned the trial from August 14 to
`October 4, 2023.
`17 On October 20, 2023, while Ms. Rowe was still on leave, the jury in the Action rendered its verdict, finding
`that Ms. Rowe failed to prove her NYLL pay equity claim. And although the jury found that Ms. Rowe proved
`unspecified discrimination and retaliation, the jury awarded her $0 in back pay, $150,000 in emotional
`distress damages, and $1 million in punitive damages. The parties filed and fully briefed post-trial motions
`(including, but not limited to Google’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict). These motions are
`currently pending.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-08655-JHR Document 404-2 Filed 04/15/25 Page 10 of 103
`
`
`
`
`May 29, 2024
`Page 9
`
`
`CONFIDENTIAL – NOT SUBJECT TO FOIA OR FOIL
`
`—performed significantly better than
` and
`Ms. Florissi’s other two direct reports—
` a 3 out of 5 for 2023, and
` a 4 out of 5. Other
`Ms. Rowe in 2023. Ms. Florissi rated
`Technical Directors who failed to meet the high expectations of the role received similar performance
`criticism similar to Ms. Rowe. For example, Technical Director
` persistent under-performance
`resulted in his separation from Google in October 2023. Notably,
` was a Technical Director in
`OCTO, hired around the same time as Ms. Rowe, in Mr. Grannis’ reporting line, and who Ms. Rowe
`expressly argued at trial in the Action was similarly situated to her in all material respects.
`
`In her Charge, Ms. Rowe disputes the legitimacy of her NE rating, pointing to accomplishments she claims
`to have achieved in 2023. Her arguments are belied by Ms. Rowe’s own self-assessments in connection
`with Google’s performance review program. For example, Ms. Rowe claims that Ms. Florissi’s criticism that
`she “did not find any new customer for Google” is inappropriate because Ms. Rowe “identified two of our
`most strategic customers:
` and
`.” Ms. Rowe identified these entities as
`customers for Google Cloud in December 2022, in connection with work she performed that year, not in
`2023. (Exh. N.)
`
`In 2023, Ms. Rowe earned $377,500 in total compensation, consisting of a base salary of $345,000, and a
`bonus of $32,500.
`
`
`C.
`
`Ms. Rowe’s leave in 2024.
`
`
`Ms. Rowe’s short-term disability leave benefits expired on or about February 25, 2024, and Ms. Rowe did
`not return to work. At that time, she was placed on an unpaid leave of absence consistent with Google’s
`Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) leave policy. That leave was approved through May 31, 2024. On
`or about May 3, 2024, Ms. Rowe sought to extend her leave yet again. Google’s thir