Litigation

Software Engineers Reach $10 Million Settlement of Discrimination and Unequal Pay Claims in California Federal Court Class Action Against Uber

On March 26, 2018 software engineers who worked for Uber Technologies, Inc. reached a $10 million settlement of their claims alleging gender, racial, and national origin discrimination, as well as unequal pay.

Roxana Del Toro Lopez and Ana Medina worked as software engineers for Uber. They claimed that Uber used a “stack ranking” system for evaluating employee performance that was an invalid performance measure, and that their employee ranks were invalid and unreliable. Moreover, they asserted that female employees were systematically undervalued, were discriminated against based on lesser compensation, and were not promoted fairly compared to their male peers.

Lopez and Medina filed an action in California Superior Court for San Francisco County on Oct. 24, 2017, alleging that Uber violated the California Equal Pay Act. Lopez also filed a class action in the California District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 27, 2017, alleging that Uber violated the federal Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C.S. § 206(c).

The parties had attended a mediation on Jan. 25, 2018, which resulted in a settlement in principle. After two months of continued negotiations, the parties executed a settlement agreement on March 26, 2018. Lopez and Medina also filed an amended complaint that same date, which asserted a variety of additional California and federal statutory violations involving discrimination, hostile work environment, and unequal pay. The settlement encompassed a common fund of $10 million for the 450 class members, as well as significant injunctive relief that included reforms to Uber’s employment practices. A motion for conditional class action certification and preliminary approval of the settlement was presented to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on March 26, 2018. The Judge was expected to hear the matter on May 1, 2018.

Lexis Advanced and Lexis subscribers can read about the case at:  2018 Jury Verdicts LEXIS 2658

Author:  Sheri Steinmetz, Lexis-Nexis Case Law Editor

For all legal research needs, please visit the LexisNexis Case Law Summaries on Lexis Advance®  

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.