Yes, the press release seems proud to be getting underpaid employees their rightful $527 each. Not sure what they think that means. This is back pay with interest -- assuming it's two years worth of underpayment, it seems safe to say some women and Asians were being "underpaid" by less than 0.1%.
Plus they're "allocating a cash reserve [for] pay-equity adjustments for the next 5 years". Wouldn't the DoL prefer that Google stop systematically paying women 0.1% less than it pays men? Why is the solution "keep some petty cash on hand, in case we sue you again"? Why in the world does Google need to post a bond for $1.3 million? When has it had less than that amount freely available in its metaphorical pockets?
About $700 per person sounds incredibly low for what is allegedly "back pay" across a three year period. Especially considering the back pay for people "not hired" should be close to "a Googler salary" and not "our last stimulus check".
Which is to say, this is barely a slap on the wrist, par for the course on government actions against Google. Sundar Pichai will still continue to act like a crook because it pays to do so, he can't be thrown in jail for it and the penalties are always a fraction of the profits.
And that there probably should be a lot of punitive damages here in addition to "back pay". At the very least, the taxpayers should be getting something back from all the years the DOL had to waste dealing with this case.
"$1,232,000 in back pay and interest to 1,757 female and 1,219 Asian applicants for software engineering positions not hired."
How is "not hired" not a measurable injury? Google screwed their careers. And presumably these employees would be making six figure salaries... each. There's no way that the tiny amount of "back pay" here actually covers that or even close to it.
You have to compare the pay with what they got instead. Most of them almost surely got hired at equivalent companies if they managed to clear the Google interviews.
Plus they're "allocating a cash reserve [for] pay-equity adjustments for the next 5 years". Wouldn't the DoL prefer that Google stop systematically paying women 0.1% less than it pays men? Why is the solution "keep some petty cash on hand, in case we sue you again"? Why in the world does Google need to post a bond for $1.3 million? When has it had less than that amount freely available in its metaphorical pockets?