Re: Thorny issue to be sure, but . . .
Do not confuse generalities with specifics. This is a case brought by women working in the same roles as male colleagues. The women involved asserted that for the same effort in meeting or exceeding project goals, they were not rewarded as well as their male counterparts. Because it's framed in terms of what should be measurable goals, rather than working hours or leave, the claim will account for differences of short-hours working, family leave or maternity (and men take parental leave too these days)
The number of hours you spend at work doesn't matter - it's what you deliver. The US has this stupid face-time culture that equates presence in the office with "working", when most of that extended day is spent just dicking around. If the long hours were really spent working, there wouldn't be so many kids' toys scattered around tech companies. Maybe practices have changed, but I still write code with a keyboard, not with a Nerf gun, and I prefer to work in an office, not some weird frat-house for man-children. (A local tech business installed a slide in their office... an actual funfair-style slide... words fail me)
If it helps to get over a thinking block, try to think of the claim this way: those managers who evaluated staff tended to favour their pals when performing evaluations. Now, consider that as the managers themselves were male, those friends were more likely to be male than female. Outcome: female workers meeting the same standard of performance were less likely to be advanced than male workers at that standard.
(Yes, the reverse occurs in fields where women outnumber men. No, it's not okay there either).
Nonetheless, it looks like their lawyer has scuppered the whole thing: by allowing that there was no oversight or control, it's really hard to then construct a solid argument that there was concerted practice of discriminating against women.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
