Member Spotlight: Lieff Cabraser’s Anne Shaver and Michelle Lamy on advocating for equal pay at Google
In late October of 2022, the San Francisco Superior Court approved a $118 million settlement in Ellis v. Google, a class action gender discrimination lawsuit on behalf of more than 15,000 female employees at Google.
Public Justice recently sat down with member firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP’s Anne Shaver and Michelle Lamy to discuss how they got involved in the class action, the importance of this win for Google employees and beyond, why class actions matter, and more.
How did you get involved with the Google gender equity class action?
Michelle Lamy: I love that question, in particular for this case. When we investigated and filed this case in 2017, I was in my first year of practice. It’s the first case that I’ve seen from start to finish, and in many ways, it was the case that I came into my own as a litigator and as an advocate.
[My involvement] was the result of Kelly Dermody and Anne Shaver at [Lieff Cabraser] responding to my requests to get involved with our civil rights practice, specifically our anti-discrimination practice, and bringing me into the fold since the very beginning. I helped to work up the complaint, helped to file it, and have been involved in the case at every step of the way through settlement. To be part of making such good law so early in my career has been an honor.
Anne Shaver: My recollection is that [Jim Finberg], a former partner of our law firm, reached out to [Kelly] to say that he had heard from some women at Google, and invited us to interview them and talk about their experiences. We all joined together to interview several different people, and as we spoke with them, we started thinking, ‘Gosh there’s really a pattern here and this seems like this is appropriate for a class action,’ particularly with Google’s reliance on prior pay as a way of informing pay decisions because we know that has such a negative effect on women.
Were you preparing to go to trial?
ML: We were. We were supposed to be going to trial [in early 2023]. The parties came together to discuss the possibility of settlement earlier [in 2022] and ultimately resolved the case before we got too far along in the trial preparations. But we were gearing [up].
Would it have been possible to achieve any measure of justice for these employees in any other forum besides a class action?
ML: We’re talking about 14,000 women here. This is a really great example of how important the class action mechanism still is, particularly in employment cases. Google did not move to compel arbitration, but for the most part, employers are still doing that. And so the legislation that’s been bubbling up at both the federal and state levels — for preventing [forced arbitration] with respect to allegations of sexual harassment and assault within the workplace — is great, but we really need to extend it to other labor code violations, like equal pay and discrimination cases. [Class litigation is] still a massively important vehicle for achieving justice in such big cases.
AS: No. Arbitration is not set up to handle that. As a practical matter, when employees have restrictions on their forums and they can’t bring claims in court, it generally means they can’t successfully prosecute claims on a collective basis, which is really unfortunate.
Does this win mean something for employees beyond the class?
AS: Absolutely, I think it’s a really important precedent. It certainly has gotten a lot of attention, and because it is a high number, it lets others know that these types of claims are viable. These are good claims, they are meaningful claims, and they’re claims that courts will certify for class treatment.
ML: In particular on the EPA [Equal Pay Act] claim we brought, we had some expert analysis [] establishing how you can compare employees for the purposes of the EPA, and providing kind of a blueprint for the way to bring these claims on a class basis moving forward. Having our expert analysis accepted by the court was a huge win. It signaled that these kinds of claims can be classed.
At the same time you were investigating Google’s pattern of using prior salary to set pay, there was legislation in California to amend the Equal Pay Act and address this specific issue. Did the focus on this issue in Sacramento inform your case, or vice versa?
AS: It spotlighted the issue. There was a Ninth Circuit holding from around that time that found that practice unlawful as well. It did have a practical impact on our case, as far as the end date to those claims. Our class started back in September 2013, and for the claim that was premised on the use of prior pay in setting level, we had to cut that class off as of the date of the legislation. As of that date, Google did change its practices. The EPA claim, by contrast, continued on until the resolution of the case.
Have you heard from any of the class members?
ML: Yes! Oftentimes we get contacted by people who work at Google or work in the industry, to let us know that they’re seeing what we’re alleging on the ground, and why the work we’re doing is so massively important. And it’s always satisfying — whether it’s a class member or not, to receive that kind of outreach.
AS: I’ve talked with our clients who are really happy with the outcome here, and feel really good about it. Both from the sense of the ultimate resolution of the case being a good one, but also the precedent that they set and the impact they had. It’s dedication, it takes a lot out of you, it’s stressful, but I think it’s safe to say they all felt in the end that they had done the right thing, they had made the right decision, and that it was worth it.
The case is Ellis v. Google, Inc., No. CGC-17–561299. Learn more about member firm Lieff Cabraser at https://www.lieffcabraser.com/.
Interested in being featured in the next Member Spotlight? Email Communications Director Lucy Sears at lsears@publicjustice.net.
