Walt Disney Studios Accused of Gender Pay Inequity in New Class Action
The complaint, filed Tuesday, which was Equal Pay Day, alleges women there are treated as “cheap labor,” earning tens of thousands of dollars less than male colleagues.
April 03, 2019 at 02:47 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Two employees of The Walt Disney Co. have filed a class action alleging that its studio entertainment division systemically underpays women, compared with men.
The complaint, filed Tuesday, which was observed as Equal Pay Day, alleges that Disney treats women as “cheap labor,” paying them tens of thousands of dollars less than male colleagues. The two plaintiffs, both women, brought the lawsuit on behalf of a class of thousands of current and former California employees of Walt Disney Studios, which has offices in Burbank and Glendale, as of April 1, 2015.
“It's beyond dispute that women are paid less in every single industry in the United States,” said Lori Andrus, the lawyer who brought the lawsuit in Los Angeles County Superior Court. “The reasons these women are paid less are based on systems within Disney. We have every reason to believe other women are impacted systemically.”
A Disney spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of a report by investment advisory firm Arjuna Capital and Proxy Impact, released this week, which found that half of the world's largest 46 companies failed a pay equality test. Disney, which last month announced it would acquire 21st Century Fox for $71 billion, wasn't on that list. Last year, however, Disney released data finding that its male employees in the United Kingdom made 22 percent more than did its women.
The lawsuit also comes as several other companies, like Salesforce and Apple, have conducted their own pay audits, revealing gender disparities.
Andrus, a partner at San Francisco's Andrus Anderson, has brought several pay equity lawsuits, including one against Farmers Insurance on behalf of 300 former women attorneys that settled in 2016 for $5.9 million.
In the Disney complaint, plaintiff LaRonda Rasmussen, who has worked there for 11 years, raised concerns with the human resources department about her pay in 2017. At the time, she was making $109,958 as a manager of product development, but six men with the same title made $26,000 more on average, with one earning $40,000 more. Disney said her salary was “not due to gender” but gave her a $25,000 raise, citing “market forces.”
“Her pay increase is not enough,” Andrus said. “It's too little, too late. The explanation we allege is bogus, and we'd like to examine the compensation systems across the board to see how women are impacted.”
Plaintiff Karen Moore, a senior copyright administrator within the Disney Music Group, who worked for the company for 23 years, alleged she was discouraged from applying for a management job that ended up going to a man.
The complaint claims the problems are systemic, noting that Disney's board of directors is mostly men, as is its executive leadership team.
“Another systemic problem is that Disney, at least until recently, was asking about salary history on the applications for jobs, and that perpetuates gender discrimination,” Andrus said.
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 AllLitigators of the Week: After a 74-Day Trial, Shook Fends Off Claims From Artist’s Heirs Against UMB Bank
‘It's Your Funeral’: Avoiding Doing Damage to Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Tips From—and About—the New Judges on the Northern District of California Bench
Trending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
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