> "Furthermore, Plaintiffs allege that the 'vast majority (over 80 per cent)' of the managers at the calibration meetings and people discussions were men, and Plaintiffs posit that 'female technical employees were systematically undervalued compared to their male peers because as a group they received, on average, lower rankings despite equal or better performance'," the court order continues"
Over 80% male. Say we round it down to be exactly 80% male. That means, given that it was based on peer reviews, that should they have done equal quality of work to their male counterparts, they had a 20% chance of getting the promotion. Not good odds to start with, as betting agencies make a fortune out of fools who think a 20% chance is a "sure thing".
So because this 20% chance doesnt come to fruition for 3 people (which doesnt even meet the minimum number required for a 20% chance to actually pay off once), it's automatically gender bias, rather than skills bias.
> "The engineers allege that the review system relies on manager and peer input from a group that is overwhelmingly male and, as a result, the female employees they evaluated may have missed out on raises and promotions."
Perhaps they should be suing their female ex-school peers, who decided against going into STEM jobs and thus perpetuating the very "gender bias" they are now claiming to be fighting.
> "Plaintiffs allege these performance evaluation methods are 'invalid' because they 'set arbitrary cutoffs among performers with similar performance' and are 'not based on valid and reliable performance measures'," the court's ruling, dated October 14, reads."
So it's gender bias because everyone who gave the same level of performance, were treated the same?