Dive Brief:
- Google discriminated against a male employee who took leave to bond with his second child, treating him less favorably than it did female employees who took the same leave, according to a lawsuit filed May 14 in the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.
- After the plaintiff in O’Callaghan v. Google Inc. took bonding leave, he returned to work under a new manager. The manager allegedly gave him a low performance rating contrary to company policy, which negatively affected the plaintiff’s pay. He complained about the rating but claimed that Google did not address the issue. Afterward, he alleged his manager treated him with “increased hostility” in retaliation for the complaint.
- The retaliation allegedly included denial of previously granted disability accommodations and scheduling of meetings outside of the plaintiff’s usual working time. He claimed his health worsened due to his work situation to the point that he applied for paid medical leave, which Google denied. After placing him on unpaid leave, the company allegedly fired him. Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Dive Insight:
Parental leave for new and expectant fathers has been the subject of some recent cultural controversy despite the benefits experts say it can provide for families. But civil rights laws like California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act prohibit discrimination in areas including compensation on the basis of an employee’s sex, among other protected characteristics.
Google’s alleged differential treatment of new mothers and fathers was central to the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiff, a single father, claimed Google treated him “with a lack of empathy and understanding” in contrast to its supportive approach toward female employees who took similar leave.
“Defendants harbored discriminatory attitudes toward [the plaintiff], a male employee who prioritized family responsibilities, viewing a father who took bonding leave less favorably,” according to the complaint.
Federal civil rights agencies have taken similar legal action against employers alleged to have treated male parents worse than their female counterparts.
For example, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Estée Lauder in 2017, alleging that the company provided eligible new mothers with six weeks of paid leave for child bonding but only provided two weeks to new fathers. Additionally, EEOC claimed that the company offered flexible return-to-work benefits to new mothers that were not extended to new fathers. The alleged conduct violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, EEOC claimed.
EEOC and Estée Lauder settled the case via consent decree in 2018, with the company agreeing to pay $1.1 million and provide other relief. Per the agency’s press release, the company revised its policy to provide all eligible employees the same level of parental leave, bonding leave and return-to-work flexibility.