Facebook's Advertising Algorithm at the Center of Age-Bias Job Recruitment Suit
Facebook is not a defendant in the case, but major U.S. companies are accused of violating employment law in recruitment practices that use the social media company's advertising platforms.
May 30, 2018 at 01:35 AM
4 minute read
A group of major U.S. companies that use Facebook's platforms to advertise job opportunities violated state and federal employment law by discriminating against older applicants, according to a newly amended complaint filed Tuesday in San Francisco federal district court.
The complaint, which now includes federal claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and additional California state claims, alleges hundreds of companies that use Facebook to advertise job postings discriminate against older workers by targeting ads exclusively to a younger demographic. The original complaint was filed in December.
The litigation is unfolding as Facebook's advertising platform comes under increased scrutiny on a variety of fronts. U.S. lawmakers and the AARP have criticized the social media giant's advertising practices. The law firm Outten & Golden, which brought the California suit, has filed dozens of age-bias allegations with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Facebook and other companies.
➤➤ Get employment law news and commentary straight to your in-box with Labor of Law, a new Law.com briefing. Learn more and sign up here.
The plaintiffs, including the Communications Workers of America, said the EEOC on May 10 issued a right-to-sue letter regarding claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Separately, the plaintiffs said they received a right-to-sue letter on May 22 from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.
The lawsuit identifies by name dozens of employers—including T-Mobile, Amazon.com, Cox Communications and Capital One—that use Facebook to send job and employment-related ads allegedly hidden from older workers. Defendants have denied that their recruitment efforts are discriminatory.
An Amazon spokesperson said in a statement: “Amazon is an equal opportunity employer. We follow all state and federal employment laws, but we have a longstanding practice of not commenting on pending litigation. Our approach is and always has been to seek all qualified candidates over the age of 18.”
The amended complaint also targets Facebook's algorithm itself, alleging that it uses age to decide which users will receive job advertisements. Facebook is not a named defendant in the California case.
“Facebook itself decides within a population selected by an employer or employment agency to receive a job advertisement which Facebook users will actually receive the advertisement, and in making this decision about which users will receive the job ads Facebook considers the age of its users; and often, this means that a disproportionate number of job ads are sent to younger workers instead of older workers,” the complaint said.
Outten & Golden's Peter Romer-Friedman in Washington said the plaintiffs “plan to use every tool in our toolbox to stop the practice and make sure that they treat everyone fairly moving forward. The allegation that the algorithm discriminates against older workers is an extremely important one.”
A Facebook spokesperson was not reached for comment about the amended complaint.
The lawsuit asks the court, among other things, to declare that the advertising and recruitment practices violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the suit seeks an injunction that stops companies “from continuing to engage in acts that violate the same federal and state statutes.”
A U.S. Senate committee has launched an investigation into age discrimination practices highlighted in the lawsuit. Romer-Friedman said addressing this issue could represent the wave of the future in discrimination cases.
“The takeaway here is that algorithms may not care about civil rights laws, but we do and the law does,” Romer-Friedman said. “We plan to hold Facebook accountable regardless of how or why it discriminates. This is a sign that we are stepping up our efforts to enforce the law.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250