Applied Materials' DEI Employment Practices: What the Company's Own Documents Show — and What They Mean for Employees

Published August 27, 2026 · Last updated August 27, 2026 · By Fett Law — Michigan Employment Discrimination Attorneys

Between 2019 and 2024, Applied Materials, Inc. published documents describing four employment practices that turned on race or sex: diversity commitments placed on the Corporate Scorecard that determines executive bonuses; a requirement that hiring managers for U.S. new-college-graduate roles receive a resume pool "consisting of at least 50% female or underrepresented minority candidates"; four numeric 2030 representation targets for women and underrepresented minorities; and a two-year promotion-track development program for "a select group of high-potential U.S. women employees." Practices in these categories were the basis of IBM's $17 million and Deloitte's $21.5 million False Claims Act settlements with the U.S. Department of Justice in 2026.

Key facts

Did Applied Materials tie executive pay to diversity targets?

The company put the mechanism in writing:

"To reinforce accountability, we added our diversity commitments as an objective on the Corporate Scorecard that informs determination of executive bonuses" — Applied Materials, 2020 Sustainability Report, p. 29 (source)

"Progress against the ESG goals impacts compensation for executives, including our CEO and his executive team." — Applied Materials, 2020 Sustainability Report, p. 10 (source)

The company's SEC filings carry the same architecture forward. Its proxy statement filed January 26, 2022 states that Applied Materials "added ESG objectives to the fiscal 2021 annual incentive plan, to measure and incentivize progress towards our long-term ESG goals," and lists among its fiscal 2021 ESG accomplishments: "Increased women's representation at Applied in the US and globally."

The proxy filed a year later is more explicit about how the objectives reach the bonus pool, and about what the goals were:

"The HRCC approved the ESG objectives for our annual bonus program to incentivize our leadership team to maintain progress toward all our 2030 ESG goals." … "the Company's level of achievement of these objectives was added to the corporate scorecard, which informs bonus payouts for our executive officers." … "Our commitment to invest in Applied's people is underpinned by goals to increase women's representation at Applied globally and in the U.S., increase underrepresented minorities' representation in our U.S. workforce, and maintain ambitious occupational health and safety total case incident rates (TCIR)." — Applied Materials, Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement 2023, pp. xiii–xiv (filed January 25, 2023) (source)

The same proxy lists, among the fiscal 2022 accomplishments feeding that scorecard: "Strengthened our Culture of Inclusion by providing comprehensive diversity training to all senior leaders and a majority of employees worldwide and increased the representation of women and underrepresented minorities at Applied." The proxy filed January 24, 2024 repeats the structure for fiscal 2023 — "the HRCC approved the sustainability objectives for our annual bonus program to incentivize our leadership team to maintain progress toward all our 2030 sustainability goals" — and that same document lists the four numeric representation targets among those 2030 goals.

In plain terms: for the period these documents cover, the senior executives who set hiring and promotion policy at Applied Materials were themselves measured — with bonus money attached — on whether the demographic composition of the workforce moved in a particular direction. Applied Materials has not published the weighting of the diversity component within the scorecard, and its proxies do not disclose the scorecard's per-component values. What the documents do establish is that the linkage existed, that the company described it as an accountability mechanism, and that it survived from fiscal 2020 through fiscal 2023.

Did Applied Materials use race or sex in hiring?

The company set it out as a specific, numbered commitment:

"For new college graduate (NCG) positions in the U.S., provide managers with a resume pool consisting of at least 50% female or underrepresented minority candidates." — Applied Materials, 2020 Sustainability Report, p. 32 (source)

"For NCG positions in China, Taiwan, India, and Israel, provide managers with a resume pool consisting of at least 20% female candidates." — Applied Materials, 2020 Sustainability Report, p. 32 (source)

The same report describes two supporting mechanisms — one in sourcing, one in referrals:

"Diverse Talent Sourcing Platform: In 2020, we invested in a new sourcing platform that allows us to search specifically for diverse candidates." … "Increased Referral Bonuses: We increased our referral bonus program for employees who refer qualified female candidates" — Applied Materials, 2020 Sustainability Report, p. 33 (source)

The year before, the company had described the intention rather than the number: "We will set clear targets for recruiting, developing, and retaining underrepresented minorities and women" (2019 Sustainability Report, p. 11).

What this meant in practice for an applicant is concrete. A 50% floor on the female-or-underrepresented-minority share of a resume pool is a rule about composition, and composition rules operate on the candidates who are not in the favored categories: for a pool of a fixed size, every seat allocated to meet the floor is a seat not available to someone else. Applied Materials' own documents do not say that any individual applicant was rejected because of race or sex, and a company may lawfully widen where it looks for candidates. The legal question, addressed below, is whether a protected trait changed who actually got considered — and a published numeric floor on pool composition is the kind of document that makes that question answerable.

Fett Law located no Applied Materials–published requirement that interview panels be demographically composed, and no statement that final-round slates were subject to a demographic rule. The documented hiring-side practices are the resume-pool floors, the sourcing platform, and the referral-bonus program above.

Did Applied Materials set numeric representation goals?

The goals, in the company's own words:

"Greater than 25% women representation at Applied globally" · "Greater than 21% executive women representation at Applied globally, with an aspiration to achieve equal global and executive representation of women by 2040" · "Greater than 25% underrepresented minority representation in Applied's U.S. workforce" · "Greater than 10% executive underrepresented minority representation in Applied's U.S. workforce" — Applied Materials, Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement 2024, p. xiii (filed January 24, 2024) (source); same four goals in 2030 Goals and Progress (source)

The goals were first published with the 2022 Sustainability Report, released June 20, 2023, using fiscal 2021 as the baseline. The company then reported progress against each one, by year:

Sources: Applied Materials, 2030 Goals and Progress (cumulative through FY22) and 2023 Sustainability Report, p. 7. A parallel supplier goal — "$1 billion spend with women- and minority-owned businesses by 2027" — was reported at $462 million in 2022 and $594 million in 2023.

This was the second generation of such goals. The 2019 Sustainability Report had already committed to "Increase U.S. women's representation to 21% by 2021" (p. 16), and the 2020 report tracked the result at 20.2% (p. 23).

A numeric representation target is not, standing alone, an instruction to any individual manager. What matters legally is whether the number was allowed to change decisions about particular people. Two features of Applied Materials' own record bear on that: the goals were tied to the executive bonus scorecard described above, and the company reported progress against them at the executive level specifically — which is where promotion decisions about individuals are made.

Did Applied Materials run programs restricted by sex?

The Women in Engineering Talent Development Program (WE TDP) is the item that sits inside the employment relationship:

"two-year development program offers resources to support a select group of high-potential U.S. women employees through networking opportunities, conference participation, professional skill development workshops" … "Fifty-nine new members joined WE TDP in 2020. More than half of WE TDP alumni and year-two members have been promoted." — Applied Materials, 2020 Sustainability Report, p. 28 (source)

In a January 27, 2022 company article republished by 3BL Media, Applied Materials described the same program as running since 2016, grown from 34 pilot members in one business unit to "nearly 200 members and alumni across 10 business units and 14 U.S. locations," and reported that "43 percent of year-two members and alumni have received promotions."

That combination — a program described as being for women employees, and a company-reported promotion rate for its participants — is what distinguishes a development program from a networking group. Access to sponsorship, executive visibility, and conference participation is a term of employment; when eligibility for it is described by sex, employees outside the described group have a straightforward question about what they were not offered.

The Applied Materials Momentum Fund™ shows the same criterion applied outside the payroll, and then removed. The 2023 Sustainability Report records it as "Established Applied Materials Momentum Fund™ to support women in completing engineering degrees" (p. 6). The 2024 Impact Report describes it as providing "women majoring in engineering in the U.S. with timely, flexible financial support," reporting 109 scholars in its first full year (p. 38). The 2025 Impact Report describes the same fund, "expanded… to help financially vulnerable engineering students complete degrees and enter high-demand semiconductor careers" (p. 27) — the sex criterion is gone, with no announcement that it changed.

The company's Generation Girl® initiative, which the 2024 Impact Report describes as working with nonprofits "to create a future where young women can reach their potential" ($5.2 million invested since 2018), is community outreach rather than an employment program, and is included here only because it is part of the same documented commitment set.

How Applied Materials' DEI program changed, 2019–2026

Why these practices matter legally

Two recent Supreme Court decisions sharpened the rule. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), the Court held that a plaintiff challenging a discriminatory change in the terms or conditions of employment must show some harm — not that the harm was significant, material, or serious. In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (2025), a unanimous Court rejected the rule, applied in several circuits, that majority-group plaintiffs must clear an extra "background circumstances" hurdle before their claims can proceed. Title VII, the Court reiterated, protects individuals, not groups.

Separately, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits race discrimination in the making and enforcement of contracts, including employment. It carries a four-year limitations period for claims arising from conduct after hiring — promotion, discharge, terms and conditions — and it requires no EEOC charge first. (Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.)

The False Claims Act route for federal contractors. On April 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that IBM would pay $17,077,043 to resolve False Claims Act allegations that it failed to comply with anti-discrimination requirements in its federal contracts — the first settlement under the DOJ's Civil Rights Fraud Initiative. In August 2026 the government resolved a second, larger matter: under a settlement agreement effective August 21, 2026, five Deloitte entities agreed to pay $21,500,000, of which $9,995,000 was restitution, covering conduct from January 1, 2017 through the settlement date. The certification hook is specific — Title VII as incorporated into federal contracts and FAR clause 52.222-26 — and the government's theory reached not only what Deloitte certified to its contracting agencies but what it "publicly represented" about its compliance. The agreement adds a second and independent theory: that Deloitte "allocated costs to its federal government contracts relating to these practices and sought payment and reimbursement under its federal government contracts for such costs." The whistleblower was paid $4,300,000. Both settlements resolved allegations only, with no determination of liability, and Deloitte denies the conduct.

Applied Materials' relationship to that framework is a matter of public record rather than of allegation: it is a registered federal contractor holding defense research contracts, it received a $100 million CHIPS Act award announced January 16, 2025, and its own Form 10-K states that its agreements with government entities carry "representations and warranties, covenants and certifications" and that non-compliance could result in "suspension or debarment from doing business with the government." Nothing here asserts that Applied Materials made any false certification, allocated any cost improperly, or violated any law; no such claim has been brought against it, and none is alleged on this page. What the record establishes is that the company operated in the same certification environment in which the government has now twice recovered.

For the complete framework — the four illegal DEI practice categories and when you can sue — see our guide, Is DEI Illegal? 4 Illegal DEI Practices & When You Can Sue.

Were you affected by these practices at Applied Materials?

Consider whether any of these fits:

• You applied for a U.S. new-college-graduate role — an engineering, technician, or professional entry position — and were screened out at the resume stage during the period when the company committed to giving managers a pool that was at least half female or underrepresented-minority candidates.
• You were passed over for a promotion to a director-level or executive role while the company was publicly tracking, and bonusing executives against, how many such roles were held by women or by underrepresented minorities.
• You were not offered a place in a two-year development program that provided sponsorship, conference participation, and executive visibility — and whose participants the company described as high-potential U.S. women employees, more than half of whom it reported were promoted.
• You are a manager or executive whose own bonus was affected by a scorecard containing the company's diversity commitments, and you know how that pressure was translated into instructions about individual hiring or promotion decisions.
• You worked in recruiting or human resources and administered the resume-pool floors, the diverse-candidate sourcing platform, the enhanced referral bonuses, or eligibility for the development program.

A federal settlement is not a substitute for your own claim: when the Justice Department resolved the Deloitte matter, it expressly preserved the EEOC's right to pursue charges alleging the very same conduct, and preserved individual liability. Nothing about that settlement compensated a single employee or applicant.

Because Applied Materials is a federal contractor, there is a second and separate route for anyone with inside knowledge. The False Claims Act allows a private individual to sue on the government's behalf and to share in any recovery; qui tam complaints are filed under seal, so the employer is not told while the government investigates. Both Title VII and the False Claims Act prohibit retaliation against people who assert their rights or report what they know — Title VII at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), the FCA at 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h), which provides reinstatement, double back pay, and special damages.

If any of these fits, it costs nothing to find out where you stand — meet our DEI discrimination lawyers, or start below.

What could a claim against Applied Materials be worth?

False Claims Act whistleblower rewards

Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d), a qui tam relator receives 15–25% of the government's recovery when the Department of Justice intervenes, and 25–30% when the relator proceeds without intervention. The Deloitte settlement supplies a paid benchmark rather than a projection: the relator received $4,300,000 — exactly 20% of a $21,500,000 recovery. That settlement also shows why False Claims Act exposure outruns the money actually lost. Of the $21.5 million, $9,995,000 was restitution — roughly the government's single damages — so the resolution came to about 2.15 times the actual loss, because FCA recoveries are built on multiplied damages plus per-claim penalties. As a second illustration, arithmetic alone: an intervened case resolving at IBM's $17,077,043 would pay a relator roughly $2.6–$4.3 million. A contractor with a larger federal book or a longer conduct period could produce a materially larger number.

Damages in an individual discrimination case

Back pay and front pay are uncapped under Title VII. Compensatory and punitive damages together are capped by employer size under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3) — $50,000 for employers with 15–100 employees, $100,000 for 101–200, $200,000 for 201–500, and $300,000 for more than 500. Applied Materials, with roughly 36,500 employees, sits at the $300,000 cap. Those figures were set in 1991 and contain no inflation adjustment. Critically, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 has no damages cap at all, which is why race claims are frequently pleaded under it, and many state statutes — Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act among them — have no caps either. Prevailing plaintiffs generally recover attorney's fees on top of any award.

For scale, from this firm's own prior results: a $10.5 million race and age discrimination class action against Ford Motor Company, a $1.1 million jury judgment against the Michigan State Police, and a $460,000 reverse-discrimination settlement for three corrections officers. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Class action potential

Class actions are built on a single policy applied to many people — which is exactly what a published resume-pool floor, a company-wide scorecard component, or a program with a stated eligibility criterion is. No class action concerning these practices has been filed against Applied Materials, and none is alleged here. For scale on what employment-discrimination class recoveries have reached historically: Coca-Cola settled for $192.5 million in 2000, Texaco for $176.1 million in 1996, and Novartis for $175 million in 2010.

Every case depends on its own facts; these figures show the range the law makes possible, not a prediction of any outcome. The fastest way to learn what your situation supports is to start a confidential intake.

Sources