A significant gender discrimination lawsuit against Apple is moving forward, following a California judge’s decision. The case originated when a female employee discovered a male colleague’s tax form on an office printer in 2019, revealing he earned $10,000 more for an equivalent role. This discovery prompted two employees to file a lawsuit claiming systemic gender discrimination within the company.
The plaintiffs, who have been with Apple for years, allege that the company’s practices disproportionately affect women. They argue that over 12,000 women in engineering, marketing, and warranty departments face pay disparities due to discriminatory policies. One of the central claims is that Apple’s system of identifying and compensating “talented” individuals inherently favors men. According to the lawsuit, among employees with similar qualifications, men are more likely to be deemed “talented,” leading to higher pay.
The plaintiffs also contend that Apple’s practice of asking applicants about prior salaries perpetuates wage disparities, as it anchors pay to historically lower salaries for women. Furthermore, they allege that Apple’s performance evaluation system is flawed. Women, they claim, are penalized in categories like teamwork and leadership for behaviors that are rewarded when exhibited by men. These evaluations directly influence compensation, exacerbating gender-based pay gaps.
Apple attempted to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the claims stemmed from a single incident in 2019 and were therefore outside the statute of limitations. The company also asserted that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate “severe or pervasive” harassment. However, the judge ruled against Apple, allowing the case to proceed.
The court found sufficient grounds for classwide claims under the California Equal Pay Act and federal anti-discrimination laws. The judge rejected Apple’s procedural arguments, stating that subjective elements in the salary process do not negate the possibility of intentional discrimination. He emphasized that even subjective decision-making processes can lead to outcomes that warrant legal scrutiny.
The decision allows the plaintiffs to pursue class action status, potentially expanding the scope of the lawsuit to include thousands of women affected by Apple’s policies. The ruling highlights the broader implications of the case, given Apple’s status as a leading technology company.
The lawsuit underscores ongoing concerns about workplace equality in the tech industry, where gender disparities in pay and opportunities have been well-documented. The case aims to challenge these inequities, holding Apple accountable for alleged discriminatory practices. The plaintiffs argue that addressing these issues is not only a matter of legal compliance but also a necessary step for fostering a more inclusive workplace.
