Cahill v. Nike, Inc.

Cahill v. Nike, Inc.

Opinion

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION

RUSSO, Magistrate [*2]  Judge:

Named plaintiffs Kelly Cahill, Sara Johnston, Lindsay Elizabeth, and Heather Hender bring this putative class and collective action alleging that defendant Nike systematically discriminates against them and other similarly situated women at Nike headquarters regarding salary and promotions. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiffs' class and collective claims except for the claims alleging disparate impact. Because it is not plain from the face of the pleadings that the proposed class cannot satisfy the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), or the requirements for a collective action under 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), the motion should be denied.

ALLEGATIONS

Named plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the following collective/class members:

All female current and former Nike employees at Nike Headquarters in Oregon, who were employed by Nike at any time from three years prior to opting-in through the resolution of this action, in a salaried, corporate position that was or is a lower-level position than Vice-President.

First Amended Complaint (doc. 42) at ¶ 165. Plaintiffs exclude Nike retail store employees, lawyers within Nike's legal department, and employees in Nike's finance and human resources departments. Id. at ¶ 166. [*3] 

Plaintiffs allege defendant has engaged in systemic sex discrimination against the collective/class members by paying them less than male employees with substantially equal job duties requiring substantially similar skill, effort, and responsibility performed under similar working conditions. Id. at ¶ 167. Plaintiffs further allege defendant has contributed to, and perpetuated sex-based pay disparities through common policies, patterns, or practices, including but not limited to those relating to starting salary and "band level," annual ratings, promotions, performance management policies or practices, centralized decision-making, and a work environment hostile to women. Id. at ¶ 168.

Plaintiffs assert defendant pays lower salaries and promotes women with less frequency than defendant's male employees. Plaintiffs allege those disparities occur because a small group of primarily male decision-makers implement the following policies, patterns, or practices which have an adverse impact on and otherwise discriminate against Class/Collective Members based on their sex:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.