Google sued over gender discrimination

California (USA), September 15: Three former female employees of Alphabet Inc’s Google have filed a lawsuit against the tech giant alleging discrimination in pay and promotions against women.

Kelly Ellis, a former employee of Google, has filed the lawsuit over discrimination against the female staff in salaries, promotions, and advancement opportunities as compared to men. Hired in 2010, Ellis was appointed at a college graduate level even though she had despite having an experience of four years.

The other plaintiffs, apart from Ellis include Holly Pease (hired in 2005), and Kelli Wisuri (hired in 2012) echo Ellis’ allegations of bias against women in promotions. Despite years of experience in their respective fields, the plaintiffs allege of starting their jobs in Google at lower levels as compared to their male colleagues. All of them stated their reason for resignation being “lack of opportunities for advancement for women”.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status covering women working in the largest search engine for the last four years. Filed in San Francisco Superior Court, the lawsuit comes at a time when Google is already facing an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor in sex bias in pay practices.

Google had earlier made headlines when a memo written by a senior Google employee, James Damore criticized diversity programs, giving out the reason for the underrepresentation of women in Google as being biological. Google later fired him.

News Sources- BBC, Reuters

Married women part of family: Bombay HC

Photo Courtesy –

Mumbai: In a landmark order, the Bombay High Court on Wednesday ruled that a married daughter does not stop being part of her parents’ family.

In the case of transfer of kerosene retail licence, a division bench headed by Justices Abhay Oka and A S Chandurkar stated that the state’s rules that discriminate against a married daughter and exclude her from the purview of the expression ‘family’ were unconstitutional and infringed on fundamental rights. In 2007, Ranjana Anerao had challenged government decision of rejecting her claim to the retail licence held by her decreased mother. At the time, the minister for food civil supplies had said that as a married daughter Anerao could not be considered a part of her mother’s family.

As per the state governments rules ‘family’ includes the husband, wife, major son, major unmarried daughter, daughter –in-law, dependent parents, legal heir and adopted son.

The Judges said, “Gender discrimination is prohibited (by) the Constitution,” Adding,” The government resolution of 2004 to the extent it excludes a married daughter from being considered a member of the family of a retail licence holder is discriminatory and violative of the Constitution.”

Read more at: