Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Mastercard, Inc. · Class Action Settlement
Mastercard Settles $26M Lawsuit Over Systemic Pay Discrimination
Four former employees alleged Mastercard systematically underpaid female, Black, and Hispanic workers through discriminatory career leveling practices. The company settled for $26 million weeks after the lawsuit was filed.
HIGH SEVERITY
TL;DR
Four former Mastercard employees filed a class action lawsuit alleging the company maintained uniform compensation and leveling policies that systematically underpaid female, Black, and Hispanic employees compared to white and male counterparts. The plaintiffs claimed they were hired into lower career levels than similarly qualified white or male employees, creating compounding wage gaps over time. Despite generating over $25 billion in revenue in 2023, Mastercard’s own disclosures showed Black and Hispanic employees earned 94.3% of white employee median pay, and women earned 96.4% of male median pay globally. Just weeks after the January 14, 2025 filing, Mastercard agreed to a $26 million settlement without admitting wrongdoing.
This settlement reveals how major corporations can profit while systematically underpaying marginalized workers through seemingly neutral policies.
$26M
Settlement amount paid by Mastercard
$25B
Mastercard’s 2023 annual revenue
94.3%
Median pay ratio for Black and Hispanic employees vs white employees
96.4%
Global median pay ratio for female vs male employees
7,500+
Estimated number of affected class members
$20,000
Compensation adjustment given to one plaintiff after years of underpayment
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
| 01 | Mastercard maintained a 12-level career hierarchy that directly determined employee compensation, with each level corresponding to specific salary ranges from minimum to maximum. The company systematically hired female, Black, and Hispanic employees into lower career levels than similarly or more qualified male and white employees performing the same work. | high |
| 02 | Plaintiff Hayman was hired at Career Level 8 despite possessing skills and experience commensurate with Level 7, forcing her to perform managerial work beyond her job scope while receiving lower compensation than male comparators doing substantially equal work. | high |
| 03 | Plaintiff Kasomo requested a Career Level 5 Director position based on her MBA and experience, but Mastercard under-leveled her into a Career Level 6 Manager position instead. During this period, the company hired at least one white male employee with comparable experience into the Level 5 Director role she had requested. | high |
| 04 | Plaintiff Brown worked from June 2017 through November 2020 and was never promoted beyond Career Level 8 despite accomplishments, qualifications, and excellent reviews. Meanwhile, Mastercard promoted other less-qualified white Analysts to Senior Analyst positions at Career Level 7. | high |
| 05 | Mastercard compensated Plaintiff Gomes as a contractor for two years, then converted her to employee status in May 2018 without increasing her compensation or recognizing her experience. In August 2019, the company conducted a compensation analysis and raised her salary by approximately $20,000, tacitly admitting she had been underpaid for over a year. | high |
| 06 | After her 2019 salary adjustment, Plaintiff Gomes reviewed internal leveling guidelines and discovered her compensation still fell below that of white male employees performing equal work. When promoted to Director in February 2021, she remained at the lowest end of the compensation range for her level despite significant industry experience and tenure. | high |
| 07 | The company implemented facially neutral policies that relied on Career Level to determine all compensation decisions including salary increases and promotions. This created compounding disadvantages because each compensation decision was based on current job code, systematically disadvantaging female, Black, and Hispanic employees over time. | high |
| 08 | Mastercard did not include Career Levels in external job postings, making it impossible for candidates to know what level they were being hired into or compare their offers with internal employees. This opacity enabled the company to systematically under-level marginalized candidates without detection. | high |
Regulatory Failures
Why oversight failed · 4 points
| 01 | Mastercard maintained these allegedly discriminatory practices for years across all divisions without intervention from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, New York State Division of Human Rights, or other oversight bodies, despite the company’s centralized control over employment practices. | high |
| 02 | The company operated under uniform compensation and leveling policies across thousands of employees nationwide, yet no regulatory agency proactively identified or addressed the systematic pay disparities until private plaintiffs filed suit in January 2025. | high |
| 03 | Mastercard failed to comprehensively evaluate and continuously validate the factors and rubrics used to determine career levels, even as numerous new roles were added and companies were acquired. This lack of oversight allowed discriminatory outcomes to persist unchecked. | medium |
| 04 | Despite knowing that facially neutral leveling and compensation policies resulted in disproportionate negative impact on female, Black, and Hispanic employees compared to male and white counterparts, Mastercard continued to employ these policies without regulatory consequence. | high |
Profit Over People
The business case for discrimination · 5 points
| 01 | Mastercard generated over $25 billion in revenue in 2023 while maintaining compensation policies that systematically underpaid female, Black, and Hispanic employees. Even minor salary suppression across thousands of workers translates to millions in annual labor cost savings. | high |
| 02 | The company’s compensation structure meant that lower base pay for marginalized employees automatically reduced their bonuses, performance-based rewards, and stock options, since these forms of compensation built upon the discriminatory base salary foundation. | high |
| 03 | By assigning female, Black, and Hispanic employees to lower career levels, Mastercard limited their access to higher salary ranges, promotions, and career advancement opportunities. This systematic cost-cutting directly boosted the company’s bottom line at workers’ expense. | high |
| 04 | The $26 million settlement represents approximately 0.1% of Mastercard’s 2023 annual revenue, suggesting the company may have viewed potential discrimination lawsuits as an acceptable cost of doing business compared to the savings from wage suppression. | high |
| 05 | Mastercard settled the lawsuit just weeks after filing rather than proceeding to trial, avoiding the discovery process that would have exposed internal documents detailing how the company’s leveling and compensation decisions were made across thousands of employees. | medium |
Worker Exploitation
Impact on employees · 6 points
| 01 | Female, Black, and Hispanic employees performed substantially equal work to their white and male counterparts but received lower compensation due to systematic under-leveling at hire. This initial disadvantage compounded over entire careers as raises and promotions built upon discriminatory base pay. | high |
| 02 | Plaintiff Hayman was required to perform significant work outside her Analyst job scope, including managerial tasks that should have been performed by individuals at the next level up, while receiving compensation below what her actual responsibilities warranted. | high |
| 03 | Employees at adjacent career levels performed the same or substantially similar duties regardless of level, meaning marginalized workers did equal work for less pay simply because they were assigned to lower levels in the company’s arbitrary hierarchy. | high |
| 04 | The systematic under-leveling caused affected employees to suffer lost earnings, lost benefits, reduced retirement contributions, smaller performance bonuses, and narrower ranges of future job prospects, perpetuating cycles of economic disadvantage throughout their careers. | high |
| 05 | Plaintiff Brown left Mastercard in 2020 largely because of lack of opportunity for advancement and promotion based on his race. The company’s discriminatory leveling practices forced qualified employees to leave rather than continue facing blocked career progression. | high |
| 06 | Plaintiff Hayman left Mastercard in 2021 to pursue a role where she would be compensated fairly, having realized that her job title did not accurately reflect her actual responsibilities and that she was under-leveled relative to her skills and experience. | medium |
Wealth Disparity
Economic inequality impacts · 5 points
| 01 | Mastercard’s own 2023 disclosures revealed that Black and Hispanic employees in the United States earned a median of 94.3% compared to white employees, and women globally earned 96.4% compared to men. These gaps represent systematic wealth transfer from marginalized workers to corporate profits. | high |
| 02 | The compounding nature of pay discrimination meant that initial under-leveling created exponentially growing wealth gaps over time. Lower salaries led to smaller raises, reduced bonuses, lower retirement contributions, and diminished equity awards throughout entire careers. | high |
| 03 | When thousands of female, Black, and Hispanic employees are systematically underpaid, entire households and communities suffer reduced spending power, lower savings rates, decreased ability to invest in homes or education, and perpetual cycles of economic disadvantage across generations. | high |
| 04 | The complaint documents how one plaintiff received a $20,000 salary adjustment after more than a year of underpayment, but no evidence suggests Mastercard systematically corrected pay for others in similar situations. This selective remediation allowed overall wealth disparities to persist. | high |
| 05 | Over 7,500 class members potentially experienced these discriminatory pay practices across multiple states and years, representing millions of dollars in aggregate wealth transfer from marginalized workers to corporate shareholders and executives. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
Escaping consequences · 6 points
| 01 | Mastercard maintained centralized control, oversight, and direction over employment practices from its Purchase, New York headquarters, meaning the discriminatory leveling and compensation policies were uniform company-wide decisions, not isolated manager misconduct. | high |
| 02 | The company implemented complex job architecture systems with job functions, job families, individual jobs, and 12 career levels that created opacity around compensation decisions. This complexity shielded discriminatory practices behind a veneer of neutral bureaucratic processes. | high |
| 03 | Despite the Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting pay discrimination, Mastercard allegedly maintained these practices for years without consequence until private plaintiffs filed suit in 2025. | high |
| 04 | The company settled for $26 million just weeks after the lawsuit was filed, avoiding trial and preventing public disclosure of internal documents that would have revealed the full scope and deliberateness of the discriminatory compensation practices. | medium |
| 05 | Mastercard’s decision to settle quickly rather than defend its compensation practices in court suggests the company feared what discovery would reveal about how leveling and pay decisions were actually made across thousands of employees over multiple years. | medium |
| 06 | The complaint alleges these violations were willful within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act, suggesting Mastercard knew or should have known that its facially neutral policies produced discriminatory outcomes but continued them anyway because they served profit maximization goals. | high |
The PR Machine
Corporate image management · 4 points
| 01 | Mastercard publicly positions itself as a leader in corporate ethics and diversity while allegedly maintaining systematic compensation policies that underpaid female, Black, and Hispanic employees by millions of dollars over multiple years. | high |
| 02 | The company likely emphasized its corporate social responsibility initiatives, philanthropic activities, and diversity partnerships as evidence of good intentions, even as the internal compensation structure allegedly perpetuated systematic pay discrimination. | medium |
| 03 | By settling quickly for $26 million without admitting wrongdoing, Mastercard avoided prolonged negative publicity and prevented the release of internal documents that would have shown exactly how compensation decisions discriminated against marginalized employees. | high |
| 04 | The settlement allows Mastercard to continue operations without implementing court-mandated structural reforms to its leveling and compensation systems, meaning the fundamental policies that allegedly produced discrimination remain largely unchanged. | high |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 6 points
| 01 | Mastercard allegedly maintained uniform, company-wide compensation and leveling policies that systematically underpaid female, Black, and Hispanic employees for years while generating over $25 billion in annual revenue, demonstrating how major corporations can profit from wage discrimination. | high |
| 02 | The company’s quick settlement for $26 million, representing just 0.1% of annual revenue, suggests it viewed the cost of the lawsuit as preferable to defending its compensation practices in court and risking discovery of internal decision-making processes. | high |
| 03 | This case demonstrates how facially neutral corporate policies can mask systematic discrimination, with complex job architecture and career leveling systems creating opacity that shields discriminatory outcomes from regulatory oversight and employee challenge. | high |
| 04 | Over 7,500 workers across multiple states and years potentially experienced discriminatory underpayment, representing massive aggregate wealth transfer from marginalized employees to corporate profits and shareholders through systematic wage suppression. | high |
| 05 | The settlement provides some compensation to affected workers but does not require Mastercard to fundamentally reform its leveling and compensation systems, leaving the structural policies that allegedly produced discrimination largely intact for future employees. | high |
| 06 | Without robust regulatory oversight, transparent compensation practices, and meaningful penalties that exceed the profits gained from discrimination, major corporations face little incentive to proactively address systematic pay inequities affecting marginalized workers. | high |
Timeline of Events
May 2016
Plaintiff Gomes begins working at Mastercard as contractor
June 2017
Plaintiff Brown hired as Associate Analyst at Career Level 9
May 2018
Plaintiff Gomes converted from contractor to employee at Career Level 7 without compensation increase
Early 2019
Plaintiff Brown promoted to Career Level 8, where he remained despite excellent reviews while less-qualified white analysts were promoted to Level 7
August 2019
Mastercard conducts compensation analysis and raises Plaintiff Gomes’s salary by approximately $20,000, tacitly admitting underpayment
October 2019
Plaintiff Hayman hired at Career Level 8 after Mastercard acquisition, despite qualifications for Level 7
November 2020
Plaintiff Brown leaves Mastercard due to lack of advancement opportunities based on race
February 2021
Plaintiff Gomes promoted to Director but remains at lowest end of compensation range despite experience
July 2021
Plaintiff Hayman leaves Mastercard to pursue fair compensation elsewhere
November 2021
Plaintiff Gomes leaves Mastercard after being promoted to Career Level 5
March 2022
Plaintiff Kasomo hired at Career Level 6 Manager despite requesting and qualifying for Level 5 Director position
October 2024
Plaintiff Kasomo terminated from Mastercard, having never been promoted from Level 6
January 14, 2025
Class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging systematic pay discrimination
January 2025
Mastercard agrees to $26 million settlement just weeks after lawsuit filing
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
Systematic underpayment across divisions
allegations
“Mastercard maintained uniform compensation, leveling, and promotion policies and practices that resulted in the disproportionate underpayment of female, Black, and Hispanic employees as compared to their similarly-situated male and white counterparts.”
💡 This establishes the company-wide nature of the alleged discrimination, not isolated incidents.
QUOTE 2
Facially neutral policies with discriminatory impact
allegations
“These policies and practices across all Mastercard divisions, though facially neutral, have an adverse impact on female, Black, and Hispanic employees across the United States, who were paid less than their male and white comparators by Mastercard for the performance of the same or similar work.”
💡 The complaint explicitly states that neutral-appearing policies produced discriminatory outcomes.
QUOTE 3
Pay gaps from company’s own data
wealth
“In 2023, Mastercard’s median pay for Black and Hispanic employees relative to white employees in the U.S. was 94.3%. In that same year, Mastercard’s median pay for female relative to male employees globally was 96.4%.”
💡 Mastercard’s own disclosures confirm significant pay disparities by race and gender.
QUOTE 4
Compounding wage gaps over time
wealth
“Inequity in compensation based on gender and/or race compounds over time because periodic compensation decisions, such as salary increases and promotions, are based on current job code. Therefore, female, Black, and Hispanic employees are systematically disadvantaged by the common compensation structure.”
💡 Initial under-leveling creates exponentially growing disadvantages throughout entire careers.
QUOTE 5
Failure to monitor leveling practices
regulatory
“Upon information and belief, Mastercard failed to comprehensively evaluate and continuously validate all factors and rubrics relied upon to determine a candidate’s Career Level, even as numerous new roles were added and companies were acquired.”
💡 The company allowed discriminatory practices to persist without oversight or validation.
QUOTE 6
Under-leveling despite qualifications
allegations
“Upon information and belief, across divisions, female, Black, and Hispanic employees were hired into lower Career Levels than their comparators irrespective of professional experience, or education level.”
💡 Qualifications and experience did not protect marginalized employees from discriminatory leveling.
QUOTE 7
Company knowledge of discriminatory impact
accountability
“Upon information and belief, despite Mastercard’s knowledge that these facially-neutral leveling and compensation policies and practices resulted in a disproportionate negative impact on the compensation of female, Black, and Hispanic employees compared to their male and white counterparts, Mastercard continued to employ these policies.”
💡 This suggests willful continuation of discriminatory practices despite known harmful outcomes.
QUOTE 8
Centralized control over discrimination
accountability
“On information and belief, Mastercard maintains centralized control, oversight, and direction over the operation of its facilities, including its employment practices.”
💡 Discriminatory practices were company-wide policies, not isolated manager decisions.
QUOTE 9
Career level directly determines pay
allegations
“Mastercard determines all employees’ compensation using a salary structure that corresponds directly to job functions and Career Level.”
💡 Under-leveling employees directly and automatically reduced their compensation.
QUOTE 10
Same work regardless of level
workers
“Employees in roles at adjacent levels perform the same or substantially similar duties, regardless of Career Level.”
💡 Marginalized employees did equal work for less pay simply due to arbitrary level assignments.
QUOTE 11
Hidden career levels from candidates
allegations
“Mastercard does not include Career Levels in its external job postings.”
💡 This opacity prevented candidates from knowing they were being under-leveled at hire.
QUOTE 12
Plaintiff under-leveled one full level
allegations
“In addition, Plaintiff Hayman was under-leveled, as her skills and experience were commensurate with Career Level 7, not Career Level 8.”
💡 Being placed one level lower meant thousands of dollars in annual lost compensation.
QUOTE 13
Belated pay adjustment admits prior underpayment
workers
“In or around August 2019, after Plaintiff Gomes was promoted to Manager, Mastercard informed Plaintiff Gomes that it had conducted a compensation analysis and determined that she was being undercompensated. Mastercard raised Plaintiff Gomes’s salary by approximately $20,000.”
💡 The company’s own compensation analysis confirmed systematic underpayment of at least one plaintiff.
QUOTE 14
Discriminatory hiring decision with direct comparator
allegations
“During this time period, Mastercard hired at least one white, male employee with comparable experience in a Career Level 5 Director role.”
💡 This provides direct evidence of discriminatory leveling with an identifiable white male comparator.
QUOTE 15
Willful violation claim
accountability
“The foregoing conduct, as alleged, constitutes a willful violation of the Federal EPA within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).”
💡 Willful violations suggest intentional or knowing discrimination, not mere oversight.
Frequently Asked Questions
What exactly did Mastercard do wrong according to this lawsuit?
The lawsuit alleges Mastercard systematically hired female, Black, and Hispanic employees into lower career levels than similarly qualified white and male employees. Because each career level corresponds to specific salary ranges, this under-leveling resulted in thousands of employees being paid less for performing the same work as their higher-leveled counterparts.
How did Mastercard’s career leveling system work?
Mastercard used a 12-level hierarchy where Level 1 was the most senior (C-suite) and Level 12 was entry-level. Each career level had corresponding salary ranges from minimum to maximum. The company determined all compensation, raises, and promotions based on these levels, meaning being placed in a lower level at hire created compounding disadvantages throughout a worker’s entire career.
What evidence supports the discrimination claims?
The lawsuit cites Mastercard’s own 2023 disclosures showing Black and Hispanic employees earned 94.3% of white employee median pay, and women earned 96.4% of male median pay globally. Additionally, specific plaintiffs documented being under-leveled despite qualifications, with one receiving a $20,000 salary adjustment after the company’s internal analysis found she was undercompensated.
How many workers were potentially affected?
The class action lawsuit estimated over 7,500 class members were potentially affected. The proposed classes included all women in covered positions from 2016-2025 (depending on state) and all Black and Hispanic employees in covered positions from 2018-2025, representing thousands of workers across multiple states over multiple years.
Why did Mastercard settle so quickly?
Mastercard settled for $26 million just weeks after the January 14, 2025 lawsuit filing, avoiding the discovery process that would have forced the company to produce internal documents showing how leveling and compensation decisions were made. Quick settlements often indicate companies want to avoid public disclosure of potentially damaging internal communications and data.
Is $26 million a significant penalty for Mastercard?
No. The $26 million settlement represents approximately 0.1% of Mastercard’s $25 billion in 2023 annual revenue. This relatively small financial impact suggests the company may have viewed the settlement cost as preferable to the reputational damage and structural reforms that could result from a trial.
Did the settlement require Mastercard to change its practices?
The document does not indicate that the settlement required Mastercard to implement specific structural reforms to its leveling and compensation systems. Settlements without admission of wrongdoing typically provide monetary compensation to affected workers but may not mandate the systemic changes needed to prevent future discrimination.
How could this discrimination happen at such a large, reputable company?
The lawsuit alleges the discrimination occurred through facially neutral policies applied uniformly company-wide. Complex job architecture with multiple levels, families, and titles created opacity that shielded discriminatory outcomes. When compensation systems rely heavily on subjective manager discretion within broad guidelines, unconscious or conscious bias can systematically disadvantage marginalized groups.
What can workers do if they suspect similar discrimination at their employer?
Workers who suspect pay discrimination should document their job duties, performance reviews, and any information about comparators’ pay and levels. They can file charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or state agencies, consult employment attorneys about potential claims, and connect with coworkers who may have similar experiences. Pay transparency laws in some states now require salary ranges in job postings.
Why did it take so long for this alleged discrimination to be addressed?
The lawsuit alleges Mastercard maintained centralized control over these policies for years without intervention from regulatory agencies. Companies often hide discrimination behind complex, neutral-appearing systems that require extensive analysis to prove disparate impact. Without proactive audits by regulators, discrimination often continues until private plaintiffs file suit, which requires significant resources and legal expertise.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
