Apple will still have to deal with a class-action lawsuit alleging pay disparity

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in AAPL Investors

A proposed class-action lawsuit against Apple, which alleges that the company underpays its female staff, is going forward after all.

Circular building with solar panels, encircling lush greenery and trees, features a pond and colorful rainbow structure at the center, set in an expansive urban landscape.
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

ronn

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 10
    AppleZuluapplezulu Posts: 2,271member
    Establishing pay at a new job based on a disclosure of salary histories at prior jobs absolutely perpetuates gender (and racial) disparities. It’s a patently unfair negotiation tactic. 
    Instead of the new company making an offer based on the perceived value of the prospective employee, they instead low-ball that person based on how every previous employer low-balled that person. Even if the person being low-balled negotiates aggressively to increase the offer, she’ll still get less than the guy who was offered more in the first place and does the usual counter offer dance to bump it up. 

    Then, for as long as the woman works there, every future percentage-based increase will be based on that smaller start, and without working twice as hard and doing more at every turn, she’ll never make as much as the guy who benefited from sexist assumptions made all the way back to his first job. 

    Meritocracy is an illusion. 
    muthuk_vanalingambeowulfschmidtdewmeforegoneconclusionronn
     5Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 10
    You really shouldn't tell a new potential employer your past prior pay level.
    beowulfschmidtronn
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 10
    jdwjdw Posts: 1,469member
    Here is the original lawsuit story from June 2024:
    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.
    edited January 22
    RobJenkWesley Hilliard
     0Likes 1Dislike 1Informative
  • Reply 4 of 10
    AppleZuluapplezulu Posts: 2,271member
    You really shouldn't tell a new potential employer your past prior pay level.
    You shouldn’t, but when they ask for it, how many people trying to get the job are going to refuse? Setting aside the possibility that a refusal will lose the job offer, if they do decline to disclose, baked in gender-based assumptions will lead to interpretations that a man is just being a confident, savvy negotiator, so he should be offered more just to get him. A woman will probably be assumed to just be afraid to disclose her low salary history and so the low-ball offer will proceed even without the disclosure. 
    ronn
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 10
    AppleZuluapplezulu Posts: 2,271member
    jdw said:
    Here is the original lawsuit story from June 2024:
    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.
    I’m glad that Apple has been doing more to address the issue. This underlines why it’s important to have the data and actively look at the results. Unless they’re a hotshot looking for superstar compensation, the problem is that the job applicant is always at an informational disadvantage in this type of negotiation. 

    Asking them to give a number first plays into the employer’s advantage. For a company of any size, they’ve done this many times before, and they knew exactly what their top number is before they had breakfast that morning. An applicant asked for salary expectations is going to start with what they’re making now, wonder how much is too much to ask for, and also wonder how much below their current pay they’d go to get their foot in the door on this new and presumably better opportunity. 

    If the company offered first, they’d almost always go a few clicks below midrange for the position, unless it’s entry level. They could also be more consistent with that number, regardless of gender. The applicant would then have a more realistic basis for negotiating. The result would then be more likely to be equitable for otherwise equally talented applicants, regardless of gender. 
    dewmeronn
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 10
    AppleZulu said:
    You really shouldn't tell a new potential employer your past prior pay level.
    You shouldn’t, but when they ask for it, how many people trying to get the job are going to refuse? Setting aside the possibility that a refusal will lose the job offer, if they do decline to disclose, baked in gender-based assumptions will lead to interpretations that a man is just being a confident, savvy negotiator, so he should be offered more just to get him. A woman will probably be assumed to just be afraid to disclose her low salary history and so the low-ball offer will proceed even without the disclosure. 
    You should just tell them that what you were paid at your previous position is irrelevant to the new position they are interviewing you for. If you asked them what they were paying their other employees with the same job title they would refuse to tell you. Unless you are going hungry and have no place to live you shouldn't be desperate to get any individual job. You should not ever show any weakness when interviewing for a job.
    ronn
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 10
    Wesley Hilliardwesley hilliard Posts: 374member, administrator, moderator, editor
    jdw said:
    Here is the original lawsuit story from June 2024:
    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.
    The problem is all the tactics you listed are inherently going to lead to pay differences. So, instead of seeking to play a range of wages like it's some kind of game, offer the same rate to everyone at the start, then provide raises based on individual accomplishments. The raise system should be uniform too, not arbitrary, so financial incentive is applied based on specific metrics being met, not a manager's good will.

    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.
    ronn
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 10
    You really shouldn't tell a new potential employer your past prior pay level.

    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.
    grandact73ronn
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 10
    dewmedewme Posts: 5,867member

    The problem is all the tactics you listed are inherently going to lead to pay differences. So, instead of seeking to play a range of wages like it's some kind of game, offer the same rate to everyone at the start, then provide raises based on individual accomplishments. The raise system should be uniform too, not arbitrary, so financial incentive is applied based on specific metrics being met, not a manager's good will.

    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.
    What you’re describing is essentially how military and civil service jobs are structured from a compensation perspective. As such, those systems do serve as potential test cases for how the model you described may work in the private sector. Using the military pay system as a reference is probably not a reasonable model in practice because there are very stark differences between the actual work and risks to life and limb between members of the military. This means that some military members are grossly underpaid for the “jobs” they do while others get the same base pay for “jobs” that are as risky as the jobs done by accountants or bus drivers. Civilian civil service jobs are much more comparable to private sector jobs in terms of the roles and the compensation package for civil service positions are non-negotiable.

    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. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 10
    sbdudesbdude Posts: 298member
    In the words of Senator Kennedy, "I've seen this movie before."
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.