Paybias lawsuit at Oracle advances
A San Mateo County judge says more than 4,100 women working at Oracle can proceed with a classaction suit accusing the Redwood City tech giant of violating California law by paying them $13,000 a year less than men with similar jobs.
The suit was filed in 2017 by women with jobs in product development, technological support and customer support. They said Oracle kept their salaries below those of men primarily by relying on what they had been paid in their previous jobs. California has now forbidden that practice, with a law that took effect in 2017, and a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled recently that it also violates the federal Equal Pay Act.
Oracle denied pay discrimination, saying the women worked in different jobs than men who were paid more, and also argued that individual differences in their skills and responsibilities made the case inappropriate for a class action that would impact all employees. But Superior Court Judge V. Raymond Swope ruled this week that the women could sue on behalf of all females who had held similar jobs since June
2013.
Oracle already classifies its jobs “by the skills, responsibilities and effort” they require, Swope said. He said the women could use those criteria to try to prove they were paid less than men in similar positions
— ultimately “a question of fact for a jury” — even if the jobs were not identical.
The plaintiffs have offered evidence from an economist and an industrial psychologist who concluded the women’s jobs were “substantially similar” to those held by higherpaid men, Swope said. Oracle says its experts disagree.
The judge also cited a statement by Lisa Gordon, who was then Oracle’s director of compensation, about the company’s payment policy, quoted by the plaintiffs: “We try to match what they made at the previous company.”
One of the lead plaintiffs, Marilyn Clark of Pleasanton, a former Oracle product development employee, said Friday the ruling is a step forward for equal treatment of women in technology.
“I hope that it will set a precedent for future cases and perhaps spark these companies to make decisions before they have to go to court,” she said.
Oracle downplayed the ruling.
“This is just a procedural step unrelated to the merits of the case, and we look forward to trying those in court,” said Deborah Hellinger, a spokeswoman for the company.