I wonder if there's any evidence of this because they'd be more careful than that if they were deliberately trying to hold back better workers from improving their company.
More likely they're not trying to do that at an institutional level, but the devil's in the detail of the stats. E.g. if fewer women in an absolute sense are promoted than men then that's probably a pipeline issue, as there are fewer women to be promoted.
Then there's proportional promotion: if a smaller proportion of women are promoted than of men then is that suspect? Still not yet, because they don't (well, they may, but unofficially) promote based on gender, but on ability, so you have to take all the men at a certain level and all the women, and if three promotions are required, you take the top 3 performers, not the top man, top woman and flip a coin for the gender of the second top.
The time when there's demonstrably sexist promotions is if there are obvious female choices who are better than the men being promoted. Then there's a huge problem.
In terms of salary it's similar, and in the relatively uncossetted world of tech your pay rise (if any) will depend on your perceived value, your ability to negotiate, and any competing offers you have. If you don't fight for a pay rise and settle then going to a court to fight the battle for you is one way to do it, but you're basically short-changing anyone who got a pay rise based on merit by doing so.