Twitter Beats Back Attempt to Revive Class Claims in Gender Discrimination Suit
The First District Court of Appeal upheld a trial court ruling denying class certification in a gender discrimination case brought on behalf of 135 women software engineers at Twitter who claim they were disproportionately passed over for promotions.
December 04, 2019 at 02:59 PM
3 minute read
A California appellate court has upheld a ruling denying class certification in a gender discrimination case brought on behalf of 135 women software engineers at Twitter who claim they were disproportionately passed over for promotion.
In a 15-page unpublished decision, the First District Court of Appeal on Wednesday upheld an earlier ruling denying class certification in the case issued last year by San Francisco Superior Court Judge Mary Wiss.
In her ruling last year, Wiss cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Walmart Stores v. Dukes, which found a nationwide class of women employees at the retail chain was inappropriate since promotion and pay decisions were made by local managers without a common mandate from the company.
On appeal plaintiffs lawyer Jason Lohr of San Francisco's Lohr Ripamonti & Segarich argued that Wiss had erroneously relied on Dukes, since California class action law departs at times from federal precedent. But First District Justice Barbara Jones noted in Wednesday's opinion that the plaintiff in the Twitter case had relied on Dukes in her own class certification motion.
"Because plaintiff invited the court to use Dukes, she cannot complain that the court accepted her invitation," Jones wrote.
The First District further affirmed Wiss' conclusion that the lead plaintiff, Tina Huang, one of the company's first female engineers, had claims that weren't typical to those of other proposed class members. Where the plaintiffs complained that Twitter managers' gate-keeping caused a disparate impact on women engineers seeking promotions, Huang actually had the backing of her manager during the promotion cycle when she was passed over. The appellate court also found that Twitter's promotion procedures varied over the class period and weren't uniformly followed by decision-makers.
"Where a policy is implemented various ways, the denial of class certification is not erroneous," Jones wrote.
Lohr said in an email Wednesday that he was "tremendously disappointed" with the outcome. "We will be reviewing the opinion in great detail and will make a determination regarding further review," he said.
Twitter was represented by outside counsel at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. "Twitter is pleased with today's ruling, and will continue to vigorously defend against the plaintiff's claims," a company spokesperson said via email. "We are deeply committed to an inclusive and diverse workplace, and to the fair and equitable treatment of all our employees."
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 AllTrellis Launches Trellis AI, a New Suite of Automated Litigation Tools
3 minute readJudge Rejects Meta’s Plea to Send FTC Antitrust Suit to Trash Heap
Quantum Computing Company to Part With General Counsel
How Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Senators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anti-Competitive Practices, Fees
- 2Deal Watch: Gibson Dunn, V&E, Kirkland Lead Big Energy Deals in Another Strong Week in Transactions
- 3Advisory Opinion Offers 'Road Map' for Judges Defending Against Campaign Attacks
- 4Commencement of Child Victims Act at Heart of Federal Question Posed to NY's Top Court
- 5Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
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