S6 Ep121: Rowe v. Google: Gender Discrimination and Retaliation Judgment $1,150,000

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.

This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!

Ulku Rowe, a finance expert with impeccable credentials, takes on a tech giant and wins over a million dollars in a groundbreaking gender discrimination case. This riveting legal battle exposes the persistent challenges women face in male-dominated industries, even at companies that publicly champion diversity.

Having built her career at prestigious institutions like JPMorgan Chase and UBS, armed with advanced degrees and Fulbright Scholar status, Rowe brought exceptional expertise to Google Cloud. Despite consistently exceeding performance expectations, she discovered troubling disparities: male colleagues with similar backgrounds were hired at higher levels with better compensation, while she was passed over for a vice president position in favor of a less qualified male candidate.

When Rowe dared to speak up about these discrepancies, she alleges Google responded with thinly veiled retaliation. The subsequent legal showdown involved complex claims under multiple discrimination statutes. Google vigorously denied wrongdoing, claiming any differences in position or pay stemmed from legitimate factors unrelated to gender.

The jury's nuanced verdict validated key aspects of Rowe's experience, finding Google liable for gender discrimination under New York City law and for retaliation under both city and state statutes. The $1.15 million judgment — including a striking $1 million in punitive damages — sends a powerful message about corporate accountability in workplace discrimination cases. This landmark decision demonstrates that even the most prominent tech companies must answer for unfair treatment, potentially inspiring others facing similar challenges to pursue justice.

Have you witnessed or experienced workplace discrimination? Share your thoughts on this case and what it might mean for equality in the tech industry.

If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.

For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.

Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, so you know how you gave us all that stuff
about Okuro and Google, like thecomplaint and what Google said,
back and then like what thejury decided and all that.

Speaker 2 (00:09):
Yeah, the whole shebang.

Speaker 1 (00:09):
Well, basically, we're going to like go deep on
that for you See what's reallygoing on, you know.

Speaker 2 (00:14):
Hope you cut through all that legal stuff.

Speaker 1 (00:16):
Exactly Like what was she actually saying.
Google did wrong, how did theytry to get out of it and, in the
end, who won, who lost and allthat.
You know the big picture.

Speaker 2 (00:25):
So you're looking for the story behind the legalese.

Speaker 1 (00:27):
Totally so.
Let's start with Okuro's sideof things.
What she put in that amendedcomplaint Sheesh, this lady's
got a serious resume Like 20plus years in finance.
Big time companies JPMorganChase, bank of America, merrill
Lynch, even UBS.
Yeah, not messing around, andnot just working, but like

(00:48):
masters in computer science,bachelors in computer
engineering, a Fulbright scholar.
I mean, come on, this is noordinary tech person.

Speaker 2 (00:55):
Yeah, that's what makes it so interesting.
She's at the crossroads of techand finance.
Like serious expertise, notsome newbie.

Speaker 1 (01:03):
Exactly, and that's where Google Cloud comes in
right.
They hired her for theirfinance stuff and the complaint
is like she did everythingProduct strategy, marketing, you
know, figuring out all thecrazy regulations, talking to
top clients, ceos and all that.
Basically, she was GoogleCloud's finance guru, speaking
at huge events payments, canada,trade, tech, even CBOs Like

(01:27):
those are a big deal.

Speaker 2 (01:28):
Oh, and do this.
She was advising the FederalReserve Bank of New York on
their fintech stuff, wow.
But here's the kicker Herperformance reviews always
exceeds expectations Makes youwonder, right, if she was so
good while the drama.

Speaker 1 (01:45):
So like what went wrong.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Yeah, that's the million-dollar question.
So her complaint boils down tothis Google discriminated
against her because she's awoman, and they did it in like
four big ways Hiring her at alower level than guys who are,
you know, no better than herthan paying her less than those
guys and get this, denying her apromotion she was totally
qualified for.
And then, when she startedcomplaining about all this, they

(02:06):
retaliated, basically demotedher, like trying to shut her up.
So each of these is a separateissue, legally speaking.

Speaker 1 (02:12):
Totally so.
Let's break them down one byone, starting with the hiring
level thing.
They brought her in as a leveleight director back in March
2017.
But she says her experience,her skills, everything it
screamed level nine.

Speaker 2 (02:26):
Makes sense.

Speaker 1 (02:27):
She even asked about it like hey, what's up with this
level eight and the hiringmanager?
Well, oh, all the technicaldirectors start at level eight.
But guess what?
Later on she finds out that'snot true at all.
Some guys with basically thesame background as her.
They got hired at level nine,making more money right off the
bat.

Speaker 2 (02:43):
Uh-oh.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
That's not a good look Nope.

Speaker 2 (02:46):
And then there's the pay discrimination part.
She's saying she was makingless than guys doing the same
work, sometimes even guys whoweren't as experienced or
qualified.

Speaker 1 (02:53):
And how does she know that I mean?
Salaries are usuallyconfidential.

Speaker 2 (02:56):
Well, you know, word gets around and also it seems
like it eventually came outduring the whole legal process.
It eventually came out duringthe whole legal process, but
anyway, she's claiming this paygap wasn't because she was less
senior or because her workwasn't good enough or any of
that, just because she was awoman.
So she's alleging it wasn'tbased on performance or anything
like that.

Speaker 1 (03:14):
Right, and it wasn't just salary either.
She says her stock options,those equity awards, were
smaller than what they promisedher and definitely smaller than
what some of the guys weregetting.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
So she felt cheated on multiple fronts.

Speaker 1 (03:26):
Totally.
And she wasn't just sittingthere taking it.
She went to HR, complainedabout the level eight thing, how
it was affecting her pay andeverything.

Speaker 2 (03:33):
Good for her.
Speaking up is important.

Speaker 1 (03:35):
Totally OK.
Now here comes the promotiondrama.
There was this open positionvice president of financial
services, level 10, big deal.
Roe thought she was a shoo-in,you know.
I mean she had the experience,the skills, plus her hiring
manager and even the CTO hadhinted that she was on track for
that kind of role.

Speaker 2 (03:56):
So she had reason to believe she was in the running.

Speaker 1 (03:58):
Totally.
But then this VP she reportedto he didn't even really
consider her, allegedly Treatedher different from the guys,
wouldn't include her inimportant meetings, wouldn't
even meet with her regularly,even though she asked.

Speaker 2 (04:11):
Sounds like she was getting sidelined.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
Big time.
And then she finds out they'relooking at outside candidates
for the VP job, people whodidn't even work at Google.
So she's like, hold up, I wantto be considered too.
She even tells them hey, thatwhole level eight thing from the
beginning, that's reallyhurting my chances here.

Speaker 2 (04:29):
So she's connecting the dots, saying that initial
decision is impacting her now.

Speaker 1 (04:32):
Exactly and get this.
Hr supposedly tells her even ifyou get the VP job, your level
and title won't change.
Like what?
Then the CTO is all.
Yeah, you're the most qualified, but I can't be involved in
deciding because I was part ofhiring you in the first place.

Speaker 2 (04:46):
What a mess.

Speaker 1 (04:47):
Total mess.
She even goes to the CEO ofGoogle Cloud tries to explain
everything, but guess whathappens?
They hire this guy from outside, been at Google for like six
months and his background'smostly in compliance and law,
not tech, not the kind of clientstuff she was doing.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
So a very different skill set.

Speaker 1 (05:03):
Totally different, and she's pointing out, a VP
makes way more than a director,so this decision is costing her
big time money wise, and itseems the jury agreed, at least
in part.

Speaker 2 (05:14):
So they saw something fishy about this hiring
decision.

Speaker 1 (05:17):
They did.
And to make things even worse,after she officially complains
about all this the deniedpromotion, the discrimination,
everything Google comes backwith three options for new roles
and she's like these aredemotions.
They're trying to punish me forspeaking up.
So she sees it as retaliationpure and simple she files this

(05:37):
lawsuit, throws the whole bookat Google, legally speaking.
Title VII of the Civil RightsAct, that's the big federal one
about sex discrimination andretaliation.
Then the Equal Pay Act, alsofederal, all about, well, equal
pay for women.

Speaker 2 (05:51):
Making sure women get paid the same as men for the
same work.

Speaker 1 (05:55):
Exactly.
And then she also throws in NewYork's Equal Pay Law and the
New York City human rights law,which also cover discrimination
and retaliation.
She wants money for lost wages,emotional distress, the whole
nine yards Plus back pay, frontpay, even wants that VP
promotion.
And of course, she wants Googleto pay for her lawyers.

Speaker 2 (06:13):
I mean, it makes sense right.

Speaker 1 (06:14):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (06:15):
If you're going to sue a giant company like Google,
you need good lawyers, andthat's expensive.

Speaker 1 (06:18):
No kidding.
Okay, so that's her side of thestory.
Now let's see what Google saysin their answer to the complaint
.
They basically deny everything,right?

Speaker 2 (06:26):
Pretty much Classic legal strategy, you know, make
the plaintiff prove their case,banner playbook.
But did they admit to anything?
A few things.
They agreed she worked atGoogle Cloud.
Yeah, new York, that she was adirector of engineering.
They also admitted she hadworked at those other companies
she listed.
But they were careful to saythey were just going by what she
said, hadn't verified itthemselves.

(06:47):
And they agreed Her performancereview said exceeds
expectations.
Oh, and they admitted they havemore than four employees.

Speaker 1 (06:58):
Wait, why is that important?

Speaker 2 (06:59):
Well, some employment laws only apply to companies
with a certain number ofemployees.
So they were basically saying,yeah, we're big enough for this
lawsuit to be valid.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
Ah, got it.
But the big stuff, thediscrimination, the retaliation,
that's where they dug in theirheels.

Speaker 2 (07:13):
Yeah, they flat out denied it all.
They said her role andqualifications weren't the same
as those level nine guys she wascomparing herself to.
Denied any promises about bigstock awards.
Said any pay differences werefor legit reasons, not because
she was a woman.

Speaker 1 (07:29):
Right, and about that VP job they said she wasn't the
most qualified and the guy theyhired was totally qualified and
those other job offersdefinitely not demotions,
according to them.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
So they had an answer for everything.

Speaker 1 (07:40):
Yep, they were ready to fight this thing.
But they didn't just deny stuff, they also brought up legal
defenses, like some of herclaims were too old, past the
statute of limitations and evenif some things she said were
true, they argued it didn'tactually break any laws.

Speaker 2 (07:56):
Classic legal maneuvering.

Speaker 1 (07:57):
And then they brought up specific defenses from the
Equal Pay Act in New York lawsaying any differences in pay
were because of things like youknow merit, seniority, how much
work someone did, stuff likethat not because of gender.

Speaker 2 (08:10):
So they're saying, hey, even if things look unequal
on the surface, there are goodreasons for it.

Speaker 1 (08:15):
Exactly, and they also said they were acting in
good faith, trying to follow thelaw, and that she didn't do
enough to you know.
Minimize her damages, likemaybe she could found another
job that paid better.

Speaker 2 (08:24):
Yeah, that's called mitigation of damages.
Basically, the idea is that ifyou're suing someone, you can't
just sit back and let yourlosses pile up.
You got to try to make thingsbetter.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
Makes sense.
And lastly, they argued therewere limits on how much money
she could get, even if she won.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
Right, trying to protect their bottom line Of
course.

Speaker 1 (08:42):
So that's Google's defense.
A lot of legal stuff, butimportant to understand their
side too.

Speaker 2 (08:47):
Totally Now the big question.
So what did the jury think?
That's where it gets reallyinteresting.

Speaker 1 (08:54):
Right.
So they listened to all theevidence, all the arguments and,
on October 20, 2023, they gavetheir verdict.
It wasn't a clean sweep foreither side.

Speaker 2 (09:02):
Oh, a mixed bag then.

Speaker 1 (09:03):
Yep.
So remember those two guys shesaid were making more than her
Hartow and Breslow.

Speaker 2 (09:09):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (09:09):
Well, for that specific claim under New York
State's labor law about equalpay.
The jury sided with Google,said they weren't liable.

Speaker 2 (09:17):
Interesting.
So for that specific part ofthe law, Google was in the clear
.

Speaker 1 (09:21):
Exactly, but then under the New York City human
rights law, the one about genderdiscrimination, the jury said
Google was liable.

Speaker 2 (09:29):
Ah, so they did find discrimination.

Speaker 1 (09:31):
They did, which is a big deal.
Right Means they believedGoogle treated her worse because
she was a woman.

Speaker 2 (09:36):
Right, different laws , different standards of proof,
maybe different evidencepresented.

Speaker 1 (09:41):
Yeah, it gets complicated, but the jury had to
sift through it all and decide.

Speaker 2 (09:46):
And what about the retaliation part?

Speaker 1 (09:47):
That's where it gets even more interesting.
Under the city's human rightslaw for the retaliation claim,
Google was liable, according tothe jury.

Speaker 2 (09:56):
So they believe she was punished for speaking up.

Speaker 1 (09:58):
Yep and then get this for the retaliation claim under
New York state's labor law, butspecifically the part about
equal pay.
They also found Google liablethere.

Speaker 2 (10:08):
So, even though they didn't find Google liable for
unequal pay overall, they didthink Google retaliated against
her for bringing it up.

Speaker 1 (10:17):
Exactly Like they might not have totally believed
her about those specific guysmaking more, but they did
believe Google messed with herfor complaining about it.

Speaker 2 (10:25):
A subtle but important distinction.

Speaker 1 (10:27):
Totally OK.
Now the money part Damages.
The jury awarded her $150,000for compensatory damages.
That's for.
You know the emotional distress, the harm she suffered because
of what Google did.

Speaker 2 (10:41):
Trying to make up for the pain and suffering.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
Exactly, and then get this a whole million dollars in
punitive damages.

Speaker 2 (10:49):
Wow, that's a lot.

Speaker 1 (10:50):
It is.
That's not just about makingher whole.
That's about punishing Googleand making sure they don't do
this kind of stuff again or thatother companies see that and
think twice.

Speaker 2 (10:59):
Sending a message loud and clear.

Speaker 1 (11:01):
Totally.
But here's somethinginteresting they didn't give her
any back pay.

Speaker 2 (11:05):
Oh, so no money to make up for the earnings she
lost because of thediscrimination.

Speaker 1 (11:09):
Nope, which is weird right, because they did find
discrimination and retaliation.
Maybe they didn't think thosethings directly caused her to
lose money, or maybe theyfigured the other damages were
enough.

Speaker 2 (11:20):
Yeah, it's hard to say for sure what the jury was
thinking, but overall theyclearly sided with her in a lot
of ways they did.

Speaker 1 (11:27):
So, after all that the judge made it official On
October 27, 2023,.
Judgment for Okuro againstGoogle LLC.
Total amount $1,150,000.

Speaker 2 (11:38):
So that's the $150,000 compensatory plus the
million punitive.
Big win for her.

Speaker 1 (11:43):
Huge win.
So there you have it, the wholestory.
Okuro sues Google, saying theydiscriminated against her
because she's a woman, paid herless, didn't promote her and
retaliated when she complained.
Google denies everything.
They go to trial the jury.
Well, they kind of split thedifference.

Speaker 2 (11:59):
Yeah, they didn't buy everything, she said.

Speaker 1 (12:00):
Right Didn't agree with her on that specific equal
pay claim under New York statelaw, but for the broader
discrimination claim under thecity law and for the retaliation
claims both under city andstate law, Google was liable and
they had to pay her over amillion bucks.

Speaker 2 (12:15):
It really shows how complex these cases can be.
You got federal law, state law,city law, different standards,
different burdens of proof.

Speaker 1 (12:22):
Exactly.
It's not always clear cut, andthis case really makes you think
.
You know, how do you provediscrimination?
How do you show that someonedidn't get a promotion because
of their gender, not because oftheir qualifications, or that
they're being paid less forunfair reasons?
It's tough.

Speaker 2 (12:38):
Yeah, these are complicated issues, for sure.

Speaker 1 (12:40):
Totally.
But even with a win like this,it makes you wonder how much
more is out there.
How many people are facing thiskind of stuff and don't know
what to do, or too afraid tospeak up.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
It's definitely something to think about.

Speaker 1 (12:52):
It is.
And you know, this wasn't justsome small company.
This was Google, one of thebiggest, most powerful companies
in the world.
If it can happen there, it canhappen anywhere.
So, yeah, lots to think about.

Speaker 2 (13:04):
Lots to unpack.