The article says the opposite with regard to where the salary adjustments went:
> One effect of the adjustments was to create a pronounced imbalance in compensation among lower-level software engineers, one of Google’s largest job groups, with a large number of men identified as being underpaid compared with their female peers. To offset that, further adjustments were made. Google said it saw no pattern in the reasons women were receiving more discretionary pay.
Btw, note that this passage (that I also quoted yesterday for a comment of my own) is now nowhere to be found in the article, that has been heaviy edited since it was posted on HN.
It says no such thing. The "large number" of underpaid men is not being compared against the number of underpaid women.
The article still contains these quotes, which clearly establish that the equity pay raises went disproportionately to men:
> The study, which disproportionately led to pay raises for thousands of men [...]
> In response to the study, Google gave $9.7 million in additional compensation to 10,677 employees for this year. Men account for about 69 percent of the company’s work force, but they received a higher percentage of the money.
1. The average under-compensated man had worked there longer or had been under-compensated longer
AND/OR
2. The average under-compensated man was in a higher paid role.
