Women want payback Apple must face suit over alleged policy of underpaying female workers Apple fails to argue sexual harassment claim was just about a seating preference. Ashley Belanger Jan 22, 2025 4:16 pm | 7 Credit: malerapaso | iStock / Getty Images Plus Credit: malerapaso | iStock / Getty Images Plus Story textSizeSmallStandardLargeWidth *StandardWideLinksStandardOrange* Subscribers only Learn moreApple must face a potential class action alleging that Apple had a policy of paying men higher salaries than women for similar work.On Tuesday, California Superior Court Judge Ethan P. Schulman filed an order that largely denies Apple's motions to strike the class allegations and suspend several class claims. This allows what one lawyer representing women suing, Joseph Sellers, said was "a very important case that impacts thousands of current and former female Apple employees."Perhaps most significantly, Apple tried and failed to argue that pay disparities for individual female workers suing were "justified" and that their circumstances were not common to the 12,000 female employees who could be owed backpay if the class action is certified and Apple loses.But Schulman agreed with employees suing that there was a "reasonable possibility" that thousands of women in Apple's California-based engineering, AppleCare, and marketing divisions experienced similar unequal pay and discrimination as alleged in the complaint.Schulman said that workers suing sufficiently alleged that Apple "has implemented an unlawful wage rate scheme that is generally applicable" to the class and results in Apple underpaying female workers, compared to their male counterparts.According to workers suing, Apple has three policies that seemingly perpetuate and widen gender pay gaps. Allegedly, Apple relies upon "prior pay and pay expectations to set starting salaries," uses performance evaluations that "reward" men and "penalize" women "for the same behaviors," and uses "talent" reviews to pay men more than women "with similar levels of talent."Schulman warned that accepting Apple's argument that evidence of pay disparity to particular employees did not reflect a common pattern or policy would seemingly "mean that a class action could never be certified" under California's Equal Pay Act."Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Defendant's salary decisions are made in a centralized location pursuant to an employment policy which appears facially neutral but 'has had the effect of perpetuating past pay disparities and paying women less than men performing substantially similar work,'" Schulman wrote.While some of Apple's defense was deemed "demonstrably inaccurate" and most of its arguments "insufficient," Apple did successfully argue against efforts to seize back pay for former female employees no longer working for Apple who were seemingly also impacted by allegedly sexist policies implemented in 2020. That claim must be dropped as the proposed class action moves forward.Additionally, another claim alleging pay disparity that was linked to racial discrimination was suspended. But the Apple worker suing, Zainab Bori, will have a chance to amend her claim that she was fired as retaliation for filing a discrimination complaint. It could survive if she adds currently missing evidence that "she suffered an adverse employment action" while working under a manager with an alleged "history of negative interactions with African American employees," Schulman's order said.Apple did not immediately respond to Ars' request for comment.In a press release sent to Ars, Eve Cervantez, a lawyer representing Apple workers suing, celebrated the court's ruling."I am really pleased with todays ruling," Cervantez said. "This start low, stay low practice has been a no-win situation for women working at Apple for years. So, Im glad they will have their day in court."Apple accused of ignoring hostile work environmentFor Justina Jongwhom the complaint noted joined Apple in 2013 and has helped lead "cross-functional teams that improve the App Review experience for global app developers"this week's win might be particularly encouraging after Apple allegedly refused to take her experience with sexual harassment seriously.Jong has alleged that in 2019, Blaine Weilert, a senior member of an Apple talent development team, touched her in a sexually suggestive manner without consent. Although Weilert admitted to the act and was disciplined, Apple tried and failed to argue this was a one-time offense that didn't constitute a hostile work environment or warrant Jong's repeated requests to be moved away from Weilert in Apple's offices.But Schulman again disagreed with Apple. He said that Jong's complaint wasn't just about wanting a certain "seating assignment" to rectify what Apple said it did not consider "severe or pervasive conduct." Instead, Jong sufficiently alleged that her "allegations involve more than a single event" and spanned her entire time working with Weilert, Schulman said."Jong's allegations encompass more than her issues with an unsatisfactory seating arrangement," Schulman wrote, while noting that Jong "further alleges that she witnessed Mr. Weilert's conduct with other females in the office."Apple was hoping the court would agree that Jong's request to transfer was unreasonable and that the tech giant "cannot be held liable" because "a reasonable accommodation was not available." Apparently, Apple even claimed that it tried to provide such an accommodation that Jong rejected. But according to Schulman, Apple never showed any evidence of that and may have neglected its legal responsibility to transfer Jong into a new position by instead offering to connect her to a recruiter and suggesting that she compete for another job opening if she wanted out of the allegedly hostile work environment.Schulman said that Apple's "argument places the burden on Plaintiff Jong to identify an available role at the time of her request, which contradicts binding authority." To support this, he cited precedent that said, "although an employer does not have an obligation to create a new job, reassign another employee, or promote a disabled employee, courts have made it clear that an employer has a duty to reassign a disabled employee if an already funded, vacant position at the same level exists."Jong told the court that she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after Apple refused to move her out of the allegedly hostile work environment. If she wins the fight, Apple could be liable for failing to timely accommodate her request.Ashley BelangerSenior Policy ReporterAshley BelangerSenior Policy Reporter Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience. 7 Comments