SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — Snapchat Inc. will pay $15 million to settle a lawsuit brought by California’s civil rights agency that claimed the company discriminated against female employees, failed to prevent workplace sexual harassment and retaliated against women who complained.

The settlement with Snapchat Inc., which owns the popular disappearing-message app by the same name, covers women who worked for the company in California between 2014 and 2024, the California Civil Rights Department announced Wednesday. The settlement is subject to court approval.

The agreement resolves a more than three-year investigation over claims that the Santa Monica, California-based company discriminated against female employees when it came to pay and promotions, the department said in a statement.

The bulk of the settlement money will go to employees who faced discrimination at Snapchat Inc., California officials said.

“In California, we’re proud of the work of our state’s innovators who are a driving force of our nation’s economy,” said Kevin Kish, director of California’s civil rights agency. “This settlement with Snapchat demonstrates a shared commitment to a California where all workers have a fair chance at the American Dream. Women are entitled to equality in every job, in every workplace, and in every industry.”

Snapchat Inc. said it disagrees with the agency’s claims but that it decided to settle to avoid costly and lengthy litigation.

“We care deeply about our commitment to maintain a fair and inclusive environment at Snap, and do not believe we have any ongoing systemic pay equity, discrimination, harassment, or retaliation issues against women,” the company said in a statement.

Snapchat Inc. grew from 250 employees in 2015 to over 5,000 in 2022. But the growth didn’t translate to advancement for female employees who “were told to wait their turn, were actively discouraged from applying for promotions, or lost promotion opportunities to less qualified male colleagues,” California officials said.

In particular, women in engineering roles, which account for about 70% of Snap’s workforce, found barriers when trying to advance from entry-level positions, according to the complaint.

California’s civil rights agency also said in its lawsuit that women were sexually harassed and that when they spoke up, they faced retaliation that included negative performance reviews and termination. Male managers routinely promoted male employees over more qualified women, the agency said.

“Women were told, both implicitly and explicitly, that they were second-class citizens at Snap,” the agency said in its lawsuit.

The settlement will require the company to hire an independent consultant to evaluate its compensation and promotion policies and retain an outside auditor of its sexual harassment, retaliation, and discrimination compliance. The company will also have to train its staff on preventing discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment in the workplace, officials said.

Snapchat Inc. also agreed to provide information to all employees about their right to report harassment or discrimination without fear of retaliation.

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas is making a serious run at becoming the new home for the reigning Super Bowl champions with legislators approving a plan Tuesday for luring both the Chiefs and Major League Baseball’s Kansas City Royals away from Missouri.

Bipartisan legislative supermajorities OKed the measure to authorize state bonds to help finance new stadiums and practice facilities for both teams on the Kansas side of the metropolitan area of 2.3 million residents, which is split by the border with Missouri. Three Super Bowl victories in five years — and player Travis Kelce’s romance with pop icon Taylor Swift — have made the Chiefs perhaps the area’s most celebrated civic asset.

The plan from the Republican-controlled Legislature goes next to Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly. While she stopped short of promising to sign it, she said in a statement that “Kansas now has the opportunity to become a professional sports powerhouse.”

Both the Chiefs and the Royals said they look forward to considering Kansas options. The lease on the Missouri complex with their side-by-side stadiums runs through January 2031, but both have said they already should have been planning for the future.

“We’re excited about what happened here today,” Korb Maxwell, an attorney for the Chiefs who lives on the Kansas side, said at the Statehouse after the bill cleared the Legislature. “This is incredibly real.”

The approval capped a two-month push to capitalize on the refusal in April by voters on the Missouri side to continue a local sales tax used to finance the upkeep of the teams’ stadiums.

Backers of the plan brushed aside decades of research by economists concluding that government subsidies for professional sports stadiums are not worth the cost. They also overcame criticism that lawmakers were moving too quickly.

A spokeswoman for Missouri Gov. Mike Parson did not immediately respond to an email message seeking comment. But in Kansas City, Missouri, Mayor Quinton Lucas promised to “lay out a good offer” to keep both teams in town.

“Today was largely, in my opinion, about leverage,” Lucas said. “And the teams are in an exceptional leverage position.”

Some Kansas officials reached the same conclusion.

“I think the Chiefs and the Royals are using us,” said state Rep. Susan Ruiz, a Kansas City-area Democrat.

The votes on the Kansas stadium-financing plan were 84-38 in the state House and 27-8 in the Senate. Lawmakers from across the state — even western Kansas, far from any new stadium — supported the measure.

It would allow state bonds to cover up to 70% of each new stadium, paying them off over 30 years with revenues from sports betting, state lottery ticket sales and new sales and alcohol taxes collected from shopping and entertainment districts around the new stadiums.

House Commerce Committee Chair Sean Tarwater, a Kansas City-area Republican, said the Chiefs still are likely to spend $500 million to $700 million in private funds on a new stadium.

“There are no blank checks,” Tarwater told GOP colleagues during a briefing.

Legislators debated the plan during a one-day special session called by Kelly to have them consider reducing taxes after she vetoed three tax-cutting plans before legislators adjourned their regular annual session May 1.

Republican leaders had promised that the stadium proposal wouldn’t come up until the Legislature first approved a plan to cut income and property taxes by a total of $1.23 billion over the next three years. Many lawmakers argued that voters would be angry if the state helped finance new stadiums without cutting taxes.

With the tax bill passed, the stadium plan gained support even from lawmakers who saw it as a handout for wealthy team owners. Some said failing to act risked pushing the teams to leave the Kansas City area, and a few said they had wanted the Chiefs in Kansas since childhood.

“It is amazing to me the speed with which we can solve problems when they’re oriented around wealth, when they’re oriented around business,” said state Rep. Jason Probst, a Democrat from central Kansas.

Yet Probst voted for the bill.

“This is the system that we’re stuck in, so if we choose to opt out of that system, we will lose every time,” he said.

Economists who study pro sports teams have concluded in dozens of studies that a new stadium and shopping-and-entertainment area merely takes existing economic activity away from elsewhere in a community, resulting in little or no net gain.

“It could still help Kansas and maybe hurt Missouri by the same amount,” said Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith college in central Massachusetts who has written multiple books about sports. “It’s a zero-sum game.”

A skeptical state Sen. Molly Baumgardner, a Kansas City-area Republican, used a Christmas Eve metaphor to characterize supporters’ excitement before she voted no.

“There are visions of sugar plums,” Baumgardner said.