Black Google Workers Near Pay-Bias Payout

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

A Landmark Step for Black Google Workers

A significant development in a landmark pay-bias case has brought thousands of Black Google employees closer to justice. On Sunday, December 8, 2025, a federal judge in California granted preliminary approval to a $50 million settlement (courthousenews.com). This case addresses serious allegations that Google systematically placed Black workers in lower-level roles and paid them less than their white colleagues performing similar work (latimes.com). The agreement will provide compensation to over 4,000 current and former Black employees in California and New York (forbes.com).

This preliminary approval is a crucial step in a class-action lawsuit. A court reviews the settlement to ensure it is fair and reasonable for all members of the class (steptoe-johnson.com). After this initial green light, the settlement moves forward, and affected employees are notified of the terms. A final hearing will eventually take place to make the agreement official. In addition to financial compensation, the settlement mandates that Google review its salary and promotion practices for racial pay gaps over the next several years (latimes.com).

Unpacking the Systemic Discrimination Lawsuit

The case is a class-action lawsuit, a legal tool that allows a large group of people with similar complaints to sue as a single entity (steptoe-johnson.com). This method is especially powerful in social justice cases, as it provides a way for individuals to challenge widespread company practices that might be too difficult to fight alone (steptoe-johnson.com). The lawsuit was filed in March 2022 by former Google recruiter April Curley, who was later joined by colleagues Desiree Mayon and Ronika Lewis (time.com).

Curley’s experience highlights the core claims. Hired in 2014 to recruit from Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), she alleged she was immediately placed in a lower-level position and paid less than her white counterparts (time.com). Plaintiffs claimed that Google managers labeled Curley an “angry Black woman,” denied her promotions despite excellent performance, and fired her in 2020 after she challenged internal practices (time.com). This lawsuit argues these were not isolated incidents. Instead, it alleges systemic discrimination, where discriminatory patterns are embedded in company policies, procedures, and culture (shrm.org).

The Coded Language of Corporate Bias

A key allegation in the lawsuit centers on the use of coded language to perpetuate bias. The plaintiffs asserted that managers often disparaged Black employees by deeming them not “Googley” enough (time.com). This phrase, while seemingly about cultural fit, was argued to be a “racist dog whistle” (time.com). A dog whistle is a coded message that communicates a prejudiced idea to a specific audience while appearing harmless to the general public (hrgrapevine.com).

In this context, “not Googley enough” can subtly signal a preference for the characteristics of the dominant group. It can imply that traits, styles, or expressions associated with Black culture are undesirable or unprofessional. This type of coded language allows discrimination to function without overt racist statements, thus making it much harder to identify and challenge directly (hrgrapevine.com). The use of such phrases points to the deep-seated cultural norms that can create and sustain systemic discrimination within a large organization (shrm.org).

A Pattern of Payouts: Google’s Legal History

The $50 million settlement is not an isolated event for the tech giant. It is part of a larger history of discrimination claims and payouts at Google. The recurrence of these lawsuits across different groups suggests broader systemic issues within the company’s culture rather than unrelated incidents (ciodive.com). For example, Google previously settled several other major discrimination cases that highlight this pattern.

In 2021, the company paid $3.8 million to settle allegations of pay discrimination against female engineers and bias against Asian job applicants (cnet.com). Earlier in 2025, Google agreed to a $28 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit alleging it favored white and Asian employees in pay and promotions (forbes.com). In 2019, Google also settled an age discrimination class-action suit for $11 million (cnet.com). This series of settlements, addressing gender, race, and age, points toward potential underlying flaws in Google’s hiring, compensation, and promotion structures that permit various forms of bias to continue (ciodive.com).

The Roots of Bias in Tech’s Code and Culture

The struggle for racial equity at Google has deep roots. Public scrutiny began years ago, particularly after Google started publishing its diversity data in 2014 (pbs.org). The initial report revealed what many already suspected: the company’s workforce had extremely low representation of Black, Hispanic, and female employees. At the time, Black employees made up just 2% of Google’s U.S. workforce (pbs.org). Subsequent reports showed that progress for Black employees, especially in leadership, remained painfully slow and even declined in some years (pbs.org).

Beyond its workforce, Google has also faced criticism for bias embedded in its products. Algorithmic bias occurs when computer systems produce unfair outcomes that favor one group over another, often because the data used to train them reflects existing societal biases (forbes.com). A stark example of this product discrimination emerged in 2016. A viral video showed that a Google Images search for “three black teenagers” returned mostly mug shots, while a search for “three white teenagers” showed pictures of smiling, happy young people (pbs.org). Such instances show how technology can amplify harmful stereotypes.

Decoding the $50 Million Settlement Terms

The settlement requires Google to pay $50 million to a class of over 4,000 current and former Black employees who worked in California and New York between 2017 and 2023 (forbes.com). The funds will not be split equally among all members. Instead, a court-approved allocation plan will determine individual payouts based on factors like an employee’s length of service and the specific damages they may have experienced (steptoe-johnson.com).

While agreeing to the substantial payment and policy changes, Google officially maintains that it did not violate any laws and denies wrongdoing (latimes.com). This is a common legal strategy. Companies often settle lawsuits to avoid the high cost, negative publicity, and unpredictable outcome of a long trial, without formally admitting fault (forbes.com). This allows them to resolve the dispute pragmatically while protecting their public image and avoiding a legal precedent that could be used in future cases (forbes.com).

Mandated Changes and the Path Forward

A crucial part of the settlement involves Google implementing significant policy changes over the next three years to prevent future discrimination (forbes.com). The company must conduct pay equity reviews before finalizing annual salaries to identify and correct any racial disparities. It must also maintain clear channels for employees to report concerns about pay, job levels, and performance reviews, ensuring these issues are investigated properly (latimes.com). In addition, Google must continue including salary ranges in job postings (forbes.com).

Perhaps one of the most important terms is the temporary pause on mandatory arbitration for employment disputes until August 2026 (forbes.com). Mandatory arbitration clauses force employees to resolve conflicts through a private system instead of public court, a practice criticized for often favoring employers (shrm.org). Pausing this restores an employee’s right to seek justice in court. The enforcement of all these changes will likely be overseen by the court or an independent monitor to ensure Google complies with the agreement (steptoe-johnson.com).

Equity Over Equality: The Broader Struggle

This case highlights the push for equity, not just equality, in the workplace. While equality means treating everyone the same, equity recognizes that people start from different places and require different levels of support to achieve fair outcomes (shrm.org). The goal of equity is to remove systemic barriers so that everyone has what they need to succeed. The mandated changes at Google, such as pay equity reviews, are designed to create more equitable systems.

The settlement arrives amid a broader context of slow progress for Black workers in the tech industry. A 2024 report from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found very little change in the representation of Black workers in high tech between 2005 and 2022 (eeoc.gov). There is also a major “blind spot” within many companies. While about a third of tech professionals believe racial inequality happens frequently, only 15% of HR professionals agree (hrgrapevine.com). This Google settlement, therefore, is a critical moment that forces a powerful company to confront its issues, but it also underscores the long road ahead for the entire industry.

About the Author

Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.