Corning Inc. Hit With Class Race, Gender Bias Allegations

Materials science giant Corning Inc. places black and female professionals in lower-paying nontraditional jobs, putting them off-track for promotion to the most lucrative senior roles, which are reserved for white men, a class lawsuit charges.

Yulonda Woods-Early’s claims are noteworthy because they allege both intersectional bias—discrimination involving more than one protected trait—and job segregation and job “steering,” issues that have been identified by some advocates as crucial in the fight against workplace bias. EEOC Commissioner Charlotte Burrows (D), for example, told Bloomberg Law in 2015 that occupational segregation often occurs as the result of stereotypes about what men and women can and should do and what their work is worth. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission views cracking down on job steering and intersectional forms of bias to be key pieces of its efforts to make equal pay for equal work the new norm, Burrows said.

Corning engages in the racially and sexually discriminatory system for paying blacks and women—especially black women—less than their nonblack and male peers even though the different groups perform equal work requiring equal skill under similar working conditions, according to the complaint filed in federal court in Rochester, N.Y., Feb. 22 by Woods-Early. She says the bias is furthered by a companywide practice of regularly rounding down the performance scores of black and female professionals while at the same time rounding up white men’s scores.

Corning has continued the race and sex discrimination despite being presented with “hard data” documenting the bias, Woods-Early says in a complaint she filed on behalf of herself and other similarly situated black and female professionals. She says she was hired by Corning into a nontraditional marketing consultant I role at $70,000 even though she was performing manager-level work that generally came with starting salaries ranging from $90,000 to $120,000. When she was promoted after four years, it was into a marketing consultant II position rather than a management job, she says.

“Corning has a longstanding commitment to diversity and equal pay,” a company spokesman told Bloomberg Law in a Feb. 26 email. “This lawsuit is meritless, and the company intends to vigorously defend against it.”

Company Not Practicing What It Preaches, Suit Says

But Woods-Early’s lawsuit alleges that Corning’s public statements don’t match what happens in its workplace. The company claims on its website that a corporate priority is leadership opportunities for diverse workers, yet it segregates its professional employees along racial lines. She says, for example, that she was the only employee to ever hold a marketing consultant I job with Corning.

Woods-Early says the company also repeatedly ignored complaints about pay and promotion bias from her and other workers. She says she was denied a performance review one year because of her complaints. No performance reviews or artificially lowered reviews among black and female professionals is a common practice at Corning, working to limit their promotional chances, she says.

The EEOC, which oversees the private sector, and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs, which oversees federal contractors, have each brought many similar cases against employers. The cost to an employer can be substantial when allegations of job steering or segregation are levied. G&K Services Inc., for example, paid $1.8 million to settle OFCCP allegations in November 2015, and the EEOC in 2009 reached a $19 million agreement with Outback Steakhouse to resolve claims it denied women access to jobs that lead to management positions.

Faruqi & Faruqi LLP represents Woods-Early and the proposed class. No attorney had filed an appearance yet for Corning.

The case is Woods-Early v. Corning Inc., W.D.N.Y., No. 6:18-cv-06162, class complaint filed 2/23/18.