PricewaterhouseCoopers Faces Collective Action by Job Applicants in Age Bias Case
A federal judge in San Francisco has conditionally certified a collective action of applicants over 40 years old who claim PricewaterhouseCoopers systematically weeded out older workers from consideration for entry-level positions.
March 28, 2019 at 06:29 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A federal judge in San Francisco has certified a collective action of job applicants older than 40 years old, who claim global accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers systematically weeded out older workers from consideration for entry-level positions in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification to pursue their federal age-discrimination claims Thursday, although his ruling remains temporarily under seal.
Jahan Sagafi of Outten & Golden, who represents plaintiffs in the case, said, “We're certainly pleased with the decision and we look forward to moving ahead in the litigation.”
Sagafi, however, declined to comment further, given that the judge's order remains under seal.
PwC's lawyer, Emily Nicklin of Kirkland & Ellis, forwarded a request for comment to a PwC spokesperson who declined to comment, citing the sealed decision.
Plaintiffs filed suit in 2016 claiming that the accounting firm's workforce skews young, due to on-campus recruitment efforts and its use of recruiting tool only accessible to applicants with a college affiliation. A plaintiffs expert in the case has calculated younger candidates are more than 500 percent more likely to be hired by PwC than people over 40. PwC, meanwhile, has maintained that its hiring is purely merit-based and that, as a sought-after employer, it hires fewer than 5 percent of applicants.
In July 2018 Tigar denied an earlier collective action bid by the plaintiffs finding that their collective definition included applicants who weren't qualified for the positions they were seeking as well as those who were. However, in that decision, the judge wrote that the plaintiffs had “adequately shown a uniform decision, policy or plan on the basis of PwC's centralized and uniform hiring policies, and the substantial evidence of age disparities in hiring.”
This content has been archived.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 AllDaily Dicta: Under-the-Radar Fight Over Jones Day Memos Could Sharply Undercut Attorney-Client Privilege
Daily Dicta: When You Cheat on an Ethics Test, You Know You've Got Problems, KPMG Edition
Trending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
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