Ninth Circuit Rejects Class Certification of Gender Bias Claims Against Microsoft
"The allegedly discriminatory pay and promotion decisions in the instant case do not present common questions because the proposed class consists of more than 8,600 women, who held more than 8,000 different positions in facilities throughout the United States," the panel wrote.
December 26, 2019 at 01:57 PM
3 minute read
A federal appeals court has upheld a ruling undercutting a prospective class action against Microsoft for allegedly underpaying and not promoting nearly 8,600 female employees.
A panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sided with a team from Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe in affirming a 2018 decision not to certify the class accusing Microsoft of systematically discriminating against women in both pay and promotions. U.S. District Judge James Robart of the Western District of Washington found there were no uniform policies or job descriptions that tied the proposed class together.
"The allegedly discriminatory pay and promotion decisions in the instant case do not present common questions because the proposed class consists of more than 8,600 women, who held more than 8,000 different positions in facilities throughout the United States," the panel wrote in the unpublished ruling Tuesday. "Further, appellants failed to identify a common mode of discretion throughout Microsoft because the individual managers had broad discretion over how to conduct the Calibration Meetings/People Discussions, as well as over the decisions that they made at those meetings."
More than 30 civil rights and labor groups filed an amicus brief urging the panel to reverse Robart's ruling. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Washington Legal Foundation were among the groups that filed amicus briefs siding with Microsoft.
The panel was composed of Ninth Circuit Judges Richard Paez and Johnnie Rawlinson, and U.S. District Judge Leslie Kobayashi of Hawaii sitting by designation.
Attorneys from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein represented the plaintiffs, and appeared to face an uphill fight during oral arguments in November.
The panelists peppered Lieff Cabraser partner Anne Shaver with questions during the hearing about how Microsoft evaluated its employees, and pushed her to identify the policy at issue.
"I don't feel there is a policy that's been pointed out," Rawlinson said at one point during the hearing.
Orrick partner Lynne Hermle handled arguments for Microsoft.
The case is one of several gender bias lawsuits that have targeted the technology industry. Other companies that have faced scrutiny include Google, Oracle, Twitter and Uber Technologies.
A California appellate court earlier in December refused to overturn a ruling denying class certification in a case against Twitter brought on behalf of 135 female software engineers who claimed they were disproportionately passed over for promotions. Orrick represents Twitter in that case.
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 AllIn Lawsuit, Ex-Google Employee Says Company’s Layoffs Targeted Parents and Others on Leave
6 minute readMorrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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