US regulators accuse Google of underpaying female workers

Though the "investigation is not complete", added another Labor official, Janet Herold, the "government's analysis at this point indicates that discrimination against women in Google is quite extreme, even in this industry".

A U.S. Department of Labor official on Friday accused Google of a widespread gender pay gap among its employees. So does Google underpay its female employees?

The company, subject to federal action because it accepts US government contracts, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on its alleged resistance to handing over compensation data to the department.

The Department of Labor's allegations come after finding pay disparities in 2015 salaries, which prompted further investigation.

Google has denied the allegations are true and maintains their own internal compensation analysis, which they conduct every year, shows no such pay gap exists.

The OFCCP said that if Google did not comply, it would ask the court to cancel all of Google's current contracts with the government, and also prevent it from obtaining contracts in the future.

And as recently as April 4, Google sent out a tweet on Equal Pay Day saying the company had "closed the gender pay gap globally".

"Like other federal contractors, Google has a legal obligation to provide relevant information requested in the course of a routine compliance evaluation", OFCCP Acting Director Thomas M. Dowd said in January.

"We want to see more women in senior leadership positions; we want to see more people from underrepresented groups because it makes us a better company", CFO Ruth Porat said in a June 2016 promotional video.

Google: "We vehemently disagree with [Wipper's] claim".

After the suit was filed, Google claims it handed over "hundreds of thousands of records" to the government but said the requests outlined in the complaint were "overboard" and would reveal confidential information and/or violate employee privacy.

Google attorney Lisa Barnett Sween testified that the DoL's request constituted a "fishing expedition that has absolutely no relevance to the compliance review" and was an unconstitutional violation of the company's fourth amendment right to protection from unreasonable searches.