Apple will still have to deal with a class-action lawsuit alleging pay disparity
A proposed class-action lawsuit against Apple, which alleges that the company underpays its female staff, is going forward after all.

A proposed class-action lawsuit against Apple is moving forward.
Even though Apple claims it takes the issue of gender discrimination seriously, with the company even having an entire webpage dedicated to diversity, the iPhone maker has faced serious criticism. In June 2024, a class-action lawsuit against Apple alleged that the company systematically underpays its female employees across multiple divisions, including AppleCare, engineering, and marketing.
According to the class-action lawsuit, Apple based its employee pay on "prior pay and pay expectations to set starting salaries," meaning that women are paid less from the get-go. The company's performance evaluations are also said to favor men, who are often rewarded with bonuses and raises based on talent, while their female coworkers are not provided with the same treatment.
Apple apparently attempted to argue that the pay disparities were "justified" and that they didn't occur as part of a pattern or policy designed to underpay women. California Superior Court Judge Ethan P. Schulman disagreed with Apple's argument, explaining that the plaintiffs demonstrated a clear pattern, as was reported by Ars Technica.
"Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Defendant's salary decisions are made in a centralized location pursuant to an employment policy which appears facially neutral but 'has had the effect of perpetuating past pay disparities and paying women less than men performing substantially similar work,'" the judge said.
This ultimately means that the class-action lawsuit is going forward, albeit with some caveats. Though most of Apple's arguments were dismissed, the iPhone maker did manage to stop efforts to seize back pay for former Apple employees, who were allegedly affected by the company's discriminatory policies.
One of the plaintiffs in the case, Justina Jong, said that she experienced sexual harassment from a senior member of an Apple talent development team, and that the company refused to transfer her away from the offender despite repeated requests.
Schulman again disagreed with Apple, saying that Jong wanted much more than a mere "seating assignment" to rectify the situation. The judge said that Jong had successfully alleged that "severe or pervasive conduct" occurred on more than one occasion. Apple's claims that it tried to move her to a different position within the company were also dismissed.
The plaintiffs in this case are represented by Outten & Golden, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, and Altshuler Berzon. These law firms are known for brokering settlements with Goldman Sachs and Sterling Jewelers.
While Apple planned to have the lawsuit dismissed, the company was ultimately unsuccessful for the most part, as the class-action is still going forward. The lawyer representing the plaintiffs, Eve Cervantez, was pleased with the ruling, saying that she's glad women working at Apple will finally have their day in court.
Read on AppleInsider

Comments
https://www.reuters.com/technology/apple-accused-lawsuit-underpaying-female-workers-california-2024-06-13/
I believe AppleZulu and Mikethemartian have been mislead based on their remarks that Apple is still establishing pay based on disclosure of salary histories, and I say that based on 9-to-5 Mac's article, paragraphs 4 & 5, which state:
Up until the summer of 2017, Apple asked candidates the salary they were paid in their current role, and based its offer on some improvement on this number. The problem with this is that if a female employee was underpaid in her previous role, then Apple would be perpetuating the differential in her new salary.
Apple recognized this problem, and ceased asking the question. Recruiters instead asked about candidate’s salary expectations, and based their offer on this. However, the Californian lawsuit alleges that this too perpetuates salary differentials, because studies show that candidates tend to base this number on some increase from their current salary.
So based on that article, after 2017, Apple is no longer asking about past pay from other employers. But one big issue in this June 2024 lawsuit actually seems to center on the words I put in bold above — salary expectations. And yet, most companies in the US, as far as I know, negotiate salaries and ask prospective employees to cite their desired salary range.In other words, a big part of this class action lawsuit seems to focus the fact that women are asking for lower starting salaries than men are asking for.
If you ask for a lower number and are hired, and then somebody else (regardless of being male/female) asks for a higher number and too is hired, then you will have a disparity. Nobody seems interested in calling out the disparity between two men who ask for different salaries, but when women are involved, then the lawyers come knocking. But the question asked by employers would not seem to be inherently sexist or discriminatory, but instead just a question. So if the end result of that rather innocent question results in a disparity, should the entire system be changed? That seems to be the issue here more than anything else, although the lawsuit puts women at the forefront.
Not being a woman, I look at this from a man's point of view. Do I want to be asked about my salary expectations? Well, I guess I wouldn't because sometimes you just don't know what a realistic number is. Ask for a sky high salary, and that could be viewed negatively, making another candidate asking for a lower number more attractive. My daughter is going through this now as she approaches university graduation this April.
So we must answer this question: If the lawsuit ultimately stops employers asking prospective hires about their salary expectations, will it end up lowering salaries across the board? Would it really result in good for all employees if they aren’t asked about salary expectations?
Honestly, I don't know. I only know it would be a tad less stressful because you then wouldn’t need to scramble to figure out a number and hope it's a good one and one that gets you hired.
But I'm just guessing. I'm not an expert. I'm sure there are people that know how to do this effectively. And the lawyers will decide and fine or not fine Apple. I'm sure there was some issue here and this lawsuit will likely get those affected some money and a victory. It's up to Apple to ensure the conditions don't exist to generate another lawsuit like this again.
This is absolutely the correct attitude. I have never done so, and I've only been asked once. My response was, "That's irrelevant. What do you have to offer." That particular company attempted to low-ball me on the assumption that I was leaving because I was underpaid, and while that was part of the reason, it wasn't even the most important one, so I declined.
How do civil service and private sector jobs with comparable requirements and responsibilities compare when it comes to pay? At least in the US they’re not even close. Private sector positions are much more highly compensated in terms of salary or hourly pay. There have been other considerations that factor into civil service jobs like better job security and pensions, but over the years a lot of those benefits have been stripped away and salaries have been bumped up a little to make the positions more attractive. But there’s still a huge gap. Another aspect of non-negotiable salary model in military/civil service is the fact that everyone’s salary is in the public record. If the military civil service compensation model is the best one to follow it hasn’t played out very well in practice.
I don’t know of any “truly fair and equal” model for pay and compensation. Every one has its pros and cons. I’ve always taken the same position on compensation as I’ve taken on career development and advancement. If you think that any organization is going to look out for your best interests there is a very high probability that you are wrong. All companies I’ve worked at seem to follow the same push-pull model. As an employee you can push and push yourself to attain more pay and more impressive job tiles. But at some point you will not be able to keep pushing yourself ahead. You will ultimately need someone at a higher level pulling you along to get beyond a certain level.