Companies Unlawfully Used Facebook Job Ads to Exclude Older Workers, Suit Claims
The suit claims that by targeting employment ads to younger workers—in age ranges of 18 to 40, or 22 to 45, for instance—employers are violating laws that prohibit discrimination in employment advertising, recruiting and hiring.
December 20, 2017 at 08:35 PM
5 minute read
Hundreds of employers, including Amazon.com Inc., T-Mobile US Inc. and Cox Communications Inc., discriminated against older workers by targeting advertisements to a specific age range through Facebook's paid platform, a federal class action filed on Wednesday said.
The Communications Workers of America and three recently unemployed workers, represented by the law firm Outten & Golden, filed the suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleged job ads and opportunities are hidden from older workers through Facebook's advertising platform. Facebook is not a named defendant.
The suit claims that by targeting employment ads to younger workers—in age ranges of 18 to 40, or 22 to 45, for instance—employers are violating laws that prohibit discrimination in employment advertising, recruiting and hiring.
The lawsuit includes examples, as exhibits, that show certain advertisements target ads to users by age and geography. One ad shows a notice of part-time work in Maryland, targeted specifically to the 18-54 age range and location in Silver Spring.
|
“In decades as a civil rights lawyer, I have never seen job ads like these that expressly target young workers and exclude older workers,” said David Lopez of Outten & Golden, formerly general counsel to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “The law requires equal opportunity in advertising, recruiting and hiring.”
T-Mobile, a named defendant in the case, and the lawsuit claims its employment ads state the company, “wants to reach people ages 18 to 38.” Amazon ads sought ages “22 to 40” and Cox “ages 20 to 45.”
T-Mobile declined a request for comment. Other companies named as defendants did not respond to requests for comment from The Recorder.
In a statement to The New York Times and ProPublica, Facebook defended its advertising practices. “Used responsibly, age-based targeting for employment purposes is an accepted industry practice and for good reason: it helps employers recruit and people of all ages find work,” said Rob Goldman, a Facebook vice president.
An Amazon spokesman said: “We have a longstanding practice of not commenting on pending litigation. However, we recently audited our recruiting ads on Facebook and discovered some had targeting that was inconsistent with our approach of searching for any candidate over the age of 18. We have corrected those ads.”
Lura Callahan, 67, Linda Maxwell Bradley, 45, and Maurice Anscombe, 57, are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit. All three are recently unemployed and use Facebook and other sites to search for work, according to the lawsuit.
The Facebook advertising platform was targeted in a lawsuit brought by Outten & Golden and other firms. The lawsuit, pending in California federal court, argued that the tool illegally enabled housing and employment ads from receiving certain groups, including African-Americans, Latinos and Asian-Americans by giving companies the option of choosing its demographic.
The suit filed Wednesday on behalf of older workers seeks an injunction against the companies and other large employers from engaging in the practice and requires defendants to compensate older workers denied opportunities.
“It's illegal and immoral to exclude older workers from receiving a company's job ads,” said Peter Romer-Friedman of Outten & Golden. “This harmful practice must stop today. We are hopeful that this class action will end systemic age discrimination in online job recruiting.”
The complaint is posted below:
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 AllNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
5 minute readCourt rejects request to sideline San Jose State volleyball player on grounds she’s transgender
4 minute readTrending Stories
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