Google has agreed to pay $28 million (£21.5m) to settle a class-action lawsuit that claimed white and Asian staff were provided with more opportunities by giving them higher pay and better carer paths than other employees.

The case, filed in 2021 by former Google worker Ana Cantu, said staff from backgrounds such as Hispanic, Latino and Native American had lower starting salaries and job levels than whites or Asians.

The settlement was given preliminary approval last week by Judge Charles Adams of California’s Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Bias claim

Adams said the settlement was fair, reasonable and “a good result for the class” which included at least 6,632 people who worked at Google from 15 February 2018 to 31 December 2024.

Google acknowledged a “solution” had been reached but rejected criticisms.

Cantu, who left Google in 2021, claimed she performed exemplary work for seven years at Google’s people operations and cloud departments but remained at the same job level while white and Asian colleagues were given extra pay and promotions.

The case cited a leaked Google internal document that allegedly showed employees from some ethnic backgrounds reported lower compensation for similar work.

Cantu’s legal team argued the practice of basing starting pay and job level on prior salaries reinforced historical disparities.

Leaked data

One of Cantu’s lawyers, Cathy Coble, praised the “bravery of both the diverse and ally Googlers who self-reported their pay and leaked that data to the media”.

“Suspected pay inequity is too easily concealed without this kind of collective action from employees,” she said.

Google said it had acted “fairly”.

“We reached a resolution, but continue to disagree with the allegations that we treated anyone differently, and remain committed to paying, hiring, and levelling all employees fairly,” the company said in an emailed statement.

Earlier this year Google ended its diversity and equality commitments, joining Facebook parent Meta, Amazon, Pepsi, McDonald’s, Walmart and other US firms who have done so under criticism from the US executive branch.