Apple Sued by Employees Alleging Unequal Pay for Women
Kanebridge News
    HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $1,839,384 (+0.39%)       Melbourne $1,112,698 (+0.31%)       Brisbane $1,239,032 (+0.41%)       Adelaide $1,124,729 (+1.41%)       Perth $1,059,750 (+0.24%)       Hobart $831,697 (-0.24%)       Darwin $874,845 (-1.71%)       Canberra $1,110,011 (-0.45%)       National Capitals $1,222,121 (+0.28%)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING PRICES AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800,472 (-0.08%)       Melbourne $528,474 (+0.36%)       Brisbane $797,670 (-0.01%)       Adelaide $584,683 (-0.37%)       Perth $605,402 (-2.05%)       Hobart $554,533 (+0.44%)       Darwin $470,544 (-1.19%)       Canberra $485,095 (+0.11%)       National Capitals $627,512 (-0.30%)                HOUSES FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 8,625 (+7)       Melbourne 10,721 (-143)       Brisbane 5,186 (-18)       Adelaide 1,693 (-41)       Perth 4,550 (-44)       Hobart 794 (+5)       Darwin 88 (-3)       Canberra 797 (-6)       National Capitals $32,454 (-243)                UNITS FOR SALE AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 6,967 (-38)       Melbourne 5,813 (-78)       Brisbane 904 (-1)       Adelaide 262 (-1)       Perth 913 (-10)       Hobart 142 (+1)       Darwin 168 (+1)       Canberra 1,055 (+2)       National Capitals $16,224 (-124)                HOUSE MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 ($0)       Melbourne $580 ($0)       Brisbane $690 (+$10)       Adelaide $650 (+$8)       Perth $725 (+$15)       Hobart $595 (-$5)       Darwin $745 (-$5)       Canberra $710 ($0)       National Capitals $694 (+$3)                UNIT MEDIAN ASKING RENTS AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney $800 (+$20)       Melbourne $590 (-$10)       Brisbane $680 (+$5)       Adelaide $550 ($0)       Perth $675 (-$5)       Hobart $495 (+$20)       Darwin $640 (+$10)       Canberra $595 ($0)       National Capitals $640 (+$5)                HOUSES FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 5,782 (+459)       Melbourne 7,492 (+593)       Brisbane 4,368 (+663)       Adelaide 1,568 (+170)       Perth 2,281 (+189)       Hobart 199 (+50)       Darwin 90 (+12)       Canberra 487 (+21)       National Capitals $22,267 (+2,157)                UNITS FOR RENT AND WEEKLY CHANGE     Sydney 9,079 (+1,172)       Melbourne 6,743 (+1,111)       Brisbane 2,425 (+278)       Adelaide 453 (+63)       Perth 559 (+62)       Hobart 89 (+24)       Darwin 171 (+10)       Canberra 523 (-181)       National Capitals $20,042 (+2,539)                HOUSE ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND         Sydney 2.26% (↓)       Melbourne 2.71% (↓)     Brisbane 2.90% (↑)        Adelaide 3.01% (↓)     Perth 3.56% (↑)        Hobart 3.72% (↓)     Darwin 4.43% (↑)      Canberra 3.33% (↑)      National Capitals $2.95% (↑)             UNIT ANNUAL GROSS YIELDS AND TREND       Sydney 5.20% (↑)        Melbourne 5.81% (↓)     Brisbane 4.43% (↑)      Adelaide 4.89% (↑)      Perth 5.80% (↑)      Hobart 4.64% (↑)      Darwin 7.07% (↑)        Canberra 6.38% (↓)     National Capitals $5.31% (↑)             HOUSE RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 1.5% (↑)      Brisbane 1.2% (↑)      Adelaide 1.2% (↑)      Perth 1.0% (↑)        Hobart 0.5% (↓)       Darwin 0.7% (↓)     Canberra 1.6% (↑)      National Capitals $1.1% (↑)             UNIT RENTAL VACANCY RATES AND TREND       Sydney 1.4% (↑)      Melbourne 2.4% (↑)      Brisbane 1.5% (↑)      Adelaide 0.8% (↑)      Perth 0.9% (↑)      Hobart 1.2% (↑)        Darwin 1.4% (↓)     Canberra 2.7% (↑)      National Capitals $1.5% (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL HOUSES AND TREND       Sydney 31.4 (↑)      Melbourne 29.1 (↑)      Brisbane 29.9 (↑)      Adelaide 25.6 (↑)        Perth 33.8 (↓)     Hobart 27.2 (↑)      Darwin 29.7 (↑)      Canberra 31.0 (↑)      National Capitals $29.7 (↑)             AVERAGE DAYS TO SELL UNITS AND TREND       Sydney 31.4 (↑)      Melbourne 30.9 (↑)      Brisbane 26.6 (↑)      Adelaide 24.3 (↑)        Perth 30.6 (↓)     Hobart 32.0 (↑)        Darwin 26.5 (↓)       Canberra 38.3 (↓)     National Capitals $30.1 (↑)            
Share Button

Apple Sued by Employees Alleging Unequal Pay for Women

Lawsuit says company’s hiring and performance-review practices routinely slant toward men

By ERIN MULVANEY
Fri, Jun 14, 2024 7:30amGrey Clock 3 min

Two female Apple employees filed a proposed class-action lawsuit Thursday alleging the company pays women lower salaries than men for similar work.

The suit, filed in a San Francisco state court, targets Apple’s hiring practices used to set compensation, as well as the company’s performance-review policies. It is the latest in a series of pay equity lawsuits against major corporations, including large tech giants, that allege they underpay women and minorities .

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of 12,000 women employed at Apple across several departments who have worked there since 2020. The plaintiffs allege that the company is violating the California equal pay, employment and unfair business practice laws. The business practice law limits claims to a four-year period.

An Apple spokesman said the company has achieved and maintained gender pay equity since 2017. Apple works with an independent third-party expert to examine team members’ total compensation and makes adjustments where necessary, he said.

Google and Oracle settled similar claims in California in recent years, pushing similar arguments about pay policies for new hires. Google agreed to pay 15,500 women $118 million to settle its case in 2022 and Oracle agreed to pay $25 million for 4,000 female workers earlier this year. The companies didn’t admit wrongdoing.

One of the lead attorneys on those cases is also representing the plaintiffs against Apple.

Central to the new lawsuit is how Apple sets a new hire’s compensation. Before 2018, Apple asked applicants to provide their previous salaries to determine pay, the suit says.

When California passed a 2018 law that banned employers from considering prior pay to set compensation, Apple asked applicants about pay expectations instead, the suit says. The plaintiffs’ lawyers argue that the practice of asking about pay expectations perpetuates gender discrimination because women have historically been paid less than men.

“If you do pay women less, you can’t defend it by saying they were willing to take less money,” said James Finberg , one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

One of the plaintiffs, Justina Jong, said she discovered a male co-worker’s W2 left behind on a printer in Apple’s Sunnyvale, Calif., branch. Though she had the same responsibilities as her male co-worker, she saw his base salary in the tax filing was $10,000 more than what she made, she said. She discovered the discrepancy several years ago, about midway through her decade-plus career at Apple, where she held several roles in sales, training and marketing.

“I felt terrible and was shocked as well. I saw myself as a hardworking person, and collaborative, providing a lot of solutions for the team,” Jong said in an interview. “I thought to myself, ‘Maybe if I work harder, they will see that I’m worth just as much or more.’”

The lawsuit alleges that when Apple hired Jong in 2013, it paid her the same base salary she earned at her previous job. In the years following, the company never gave her the kind of raise that put her on equal footing with her male peers, the suit says.

Jong said it took her years to decide to challenge the discrepancy and sign onto the lawsuit. She said she was spurred by stories about unequal pay from other women at the company.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, Apple faced a rise in employee activism. Apple workers organized to form a group called Apple Too to mirror the #MeToo movement, which gathered stories of discrimination and pushed the company to change its pay practices. The movement led to some retail stores forming unions.

“At Apple we are deeply committed to inclusion and we have a longstanding commitment to pay equity, which is embedded in our approach to compensating our valued team members,” a spokesman for Apple said.

The other named plaintiff, Amina Salgado, has worked at Apple since 2012 in various roles, including as a manager in the AppleCare division in the company’s office near Sacramento. She discovered she was paid less than men in similar roles, and she complained several times about the discrepancy, according to the lawsuit. Apple hired a third party to investigate, and after the report concluded she was right, the company increased her pay. She didn’t get back pay, the lawsuit says.

The suit also claims that Apple uses biased criteria in its performance-review system. Men routinely receive higher ratings for the discretionary categories of leadership and teamwork, leading to better reviews for men, the plaintiffs’ lawyers argue.



MOST POPULAR

A long-standing cultural cruise and a new expedition-style offering will soon operate side by side in French Polynesia.

The pandemic-fuelled love affair with casual footwear is fading, with Bank of America warning the downturn shows no sign of easing.

Related Stories
Money
The Casual Footwear Boom Is Over. It’s Bad News for Adidas.
By SABRINA ESCOBAR 09/01/2026
Money
Five Wall Street Investors Explain How They’re Approaching the Coming Year
By JACK PITCHER 06/01/2026
Money
Capital Haus buys Baker Young in billion-dollar push to reshape Australian wealth advice
By Jeni O'Dowd 01/12/2025
The Casual Footwear Boom Is Over. It’s Bad News for Adidas.

The pandemic-fuelled love affair with casual footwear is fading, with Bank of America warning the downturn shows no sign of easing.

By SABRINA ESCOBAR
Fri, Jan 9, 2026 2 min

The boom in casual footware ushered in by the pandemic has ended, a potential problem for companies such as Adidas that benefited from the shift to less formal clothing, Bank of America says.

The casual footwear business has been on the ropes since mid-2023 as people began returning to office.

Analyst Thierry Cota wrote that while most downcycles have lasted one to two years over the past two decades or so, the current one is different.

It “shows no sign of abating” and there is “no turning point in sight,” he said.

Adidas and Nike alone account for almost 60% of revenue in the casual footwear industry, Cota estimated, so the sector’s slower growth could be especially painful for them as opposed to brands that have a stronger performance-shoe segment. Adidas may just have it worse than Nike.

Cota downgraded Adidas stock to Underperform from Buy on Tuesday and slashed his target for the stock price to €160 (about $187) from €213. He doesn’t have a rating for Nike stock.

Shares of Adidas listed on the German stock exchange fell 4.5% Tuesday to €162.25. Nike stock was down 1.2%.

Adidas didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Cota sees trouble for Adidas both in the short and long term.

Adidas’ lifestyle segment, which includes the Gazelles and Sambas brands, has been one of the company’s fastest-growing business, but there are signs growth is waning.

Lifestyle sales increased at a 10% annual pace in Adidas’ third quarter, down from 13% in the second quarter.

The analyst now predicts Adidas’ organic sales will grow by a 5% annual rate starting in 2027, down from his prior forecast of 7.5%.

The slower revenue growth will likewise weigh on profitability, Cota said, predicting that margins on earnings before interest and taxes will decline back toward the company’s long-term average after several quarters of outperforming. That could result in a cut to earnings per share.

Adidas stock had a rough 2025. Shares shed 33% in the past 12 months, weighed down by investor concerns over how tariffs, slowing demand, and increased competition would affect revenue growth.

Nike stock fell 9% throughout the period, reflecting both the company’s struggles with demand and optimism over a turnaround plan CEO Elliott Hill rolled out in late 2024.

Investors’ confidence has faded following Nike’s December earnings report, which suggested that a sustained recovery is still several quarters away. Just how many remains anyone’s guess.

But if Adidas’ challenges continue, as Cota believes they will, it could open up some space for Nike to claw back any market share it lost to its rival.

Investors should keep in mind, however, that the field has grown increasingly crowded in the past five years. Upstarts such as On Holding and Hoka also present a formidable challenge to the sector’s legacy brands.

Shares of On and Deckers Outdoor , Hoka’s parent company, fell 11% and 48%, respectively, in 2025, but analysts are upbeat about both companies’ fundamentals as the new year begins.

The battle of the sneakers is just getting started.

MOST POPULAR

Formula 1 may be the world’s most glamorous sport, but for Oscar Piastri, it’s also one of the most lucrative. At just 24, Australia’s highest-paid athlete is earning more than US$40 million a year.

From the shacks of yesterday to the sculptural sanctuaries of today, Australia’s coastal architecture has matured into a global benchmark for design.

Related Stories
Property
Whitsundays’ Most Exclusive Home Lists for Sale
By Staff Writer 20/10/2025
Money
In a Sea of Tech Talent, Companies Can’t Find the Workers They Want
By CALLUM BORCHERS 02/10/2025
Lifestyle
RIEDEL’s Cobra Magnum Decanter Leads Striking New Glassware Line-Up
By Staff Writer 10/09/2025
0
    Your Cart
    Your cart is emptyReturn to Shop