Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Yahoo corporate headquarters.

Yahoo Inc. is set to ask a federal judge in San Jose Wednesday to knock out claims from two former managers in the company’s media unit who claim they were discriminated against based on gender.

This content has been archived.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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Ross Todd

Ross Todd is the Editor/columnist for the Am Law Litigation Daily. He writes about litigation of all sorts. Previously, Ross was the Bureau Chief of The Recorder, ALM's California affiliate. Contact Ross at [email protected] On Twitter: @Ross_Todd.

More from this author

Law Firms Mentioned

[caption id="attachment_1413" align="alignnone" width="616"]<img class="size-full wp-image-1413" src="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Morgan Lewis Bockius

/uploads/sites/403/2017/10/Yahoo-Article-201710092322.jpg" alt="" width="616" height="372" /> <em>Yahoo corporate headquarters.</em>[/caption] Yahoo Inc. is <a href="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Morgan Lewis Bockius

/uploads/documents/403/ArdvYahooSJ.pdf" target="_blank">set to ask a federal judge</a> in San Jose Wednesday to knock out claims from two former managers in the company���s media��unit who claim they were discriminated against based on gender. But in this case, the plaintiffs, <a href="http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202749085844#comments" target="_blank">Gregory Anderson</a> and <a href="http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202769581629" target="_blank">Scott Ard</a>, claim that they were discriminated against because they were men in an organization that��went too far to promote and hire women. ���Only intentional discrimination can explain how an amazing 83 percent of the people holding leadership positions in the new digital magazines were women,��� <a href="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Morgan Lewis Bockius

/uploads/documents/403/ArdvYahooSJResponse.pdf" target="_blank">wrote the men���s lawyer</a>, Palo Alto-based Jon Parsons, describing how Yahoo���s media arm was restructured under then-CEO Marissa Mayer and media chief Kathy Savitt. The case has moved to the summary judgment phase just as conversations about gender parity in Silicon Valley have reached a fever pitch. In <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/technology/silicon-valley-men-backlash-gender-scandals.html" target="_blank">a front-page story for The New York Times</a> headlined ���Push for Gender Equality in Tech? Some Men Say It���s Gone Too Far,��� Parsons said there was ���no control over women hiring women��� at Yahoo. ���When you���re on a mission from God to set the world straight, it���s easy to go too far,��� he told the Times. Parsons declined to comment to The Recorder in the run-up to Wednesday���s summary judgment hearing. The hearing is before��U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins of the Northern District of California. Yahoo, represented by a team at Morgan, Lewis &amp; Bockius led by labor and employment partner Melinda Riechert, is set to push back with their own explanation of why the men were let go. Anderson, the company claims, was fired because his quarterly performance review scores were repeatedly low, putting him in the bottom 5 percent of employees in the company. Ard,��Yahoo's lawyers argue, didn���t add enough value to his team, especially given his senior level. ���Yahoo had legitimate bases to terminate plaintiffs��� employment and plaintiffs have not and cannot produce evidence that those legitimate bases were a pretext for gender discrimination,��� Riechert wrote. Here are three things to watch as the parties prepare to argue��for their arguments. <strong>The burden is on Yahoo</strong> As the moving party, Yahoo has the ���heavy burden��� to show there are no triable fact issues. Summary judgment will be nixed so long as a ���fair-minded jury could return a verdict��� for the plaintiffs. The standard typically makes winning summary judgment for defendants in fact- and circumstance-specific discrimination cases a long shot. In his opposition papers, Parsons latched onto one particular claim that he says Yahoo has not addressed: That Ard���s firing came just three days after he raised red flags internally about quarterly reviews scores that he gave to three male employees��that were adjusted downward by his female supervisor. ���Yahoo engaged in sex-based discrimination not only by reducing plaintiff���s scores and terminating them, but also by retaliating against Scott Ard because of his repeated attempts to address what he saw as the arbitrary lowering of men���s QPR scores and the wrongful termination of men,��� Parsons wrote. <strong>This could get awkward</strong> In��pushing Anderson���s case,��Parsons will have to grapple with the fact that three of��his four managers were men, including fellow plaintiff Ard. Yahoo���s lawyers have seized on that reporting relationship. ���[Anderson] was identified as a poor manager by his managers, <em>including plaintiff Scott Ard</em>, and his direct reports who completed annual anonymous Yahoo Employee Engagement Surveys (YEES), in which they answered questions rating his management skills,��� <a href="http://www.almcms.com/contrib

  • Morgan Lewis Bockius

/uploads/documents/403/1412/ArdvYahooSJReply.pdf" target="_blank">Yahoo���s lawyers wrote</a>. Yahoo���s lawyers also point out Ard took on Anderson���s duties when he took personal leave to attend a professional fellowship at the University of Michigan without��much disruption���a point they argue shows how expendable Anderson's position was. <strong>Threat assessment</strong> Lori Andrus of Andrus Anderson, who regularly represents women bringing gender discrimination claims but who isn't involved in the Yahoo case, said gender discrimination lawsuits brought by men ���don't represent an existential threat to tech companies.��� Since tech companies constantly claim there���s a ���pipeline problem��� creating a lack of qualified female candidates, she said it would be hard to argue that they���re hiring too many women and forcing men out unfairly. Beyond their gender discrimination claims, the plaintiffs in the Yahoo case argue Yahoo���s internal review process was used as��a pretense��for wide-scale reductions in force. While the company claims it used the internal reviews to rank low-performing employees and managers whose pay exceeded their value, plaintiffs claim Yahoo labeled economically motivated layoffs��as merit-based to��stave off having to provide the sort of notice and benefits associated with mass layoffs. Even though the Yahoo case is not styled as a class action,��it seeks a finding that the company���s moves violated state and federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act laws, or WARN Acts, which require certain notice and benefits to workers who are subject to mass cuts. Such a finding could create a dangerous precedent for Yahoo or any other companies employing so-called ���stack ranking��� systems in the future. ���By paying out roughly one-third the pay and benefits than it would for standard layoffs, Yahoo had a tremendous financial incentive to characterize each employee���s departure as being for cause under cover of the QPR process,��� Parsons wrote. ���And in doing so, Yahoo denied thousands of employees their proper separation benefits.��� <em>Ross Todd can be contacted at [email protected]</em> <

  • Morgan Lewis Bockius


All About Cable and BroadbandBook

This is a comprehensiv guide of the law at every level as it applies to cable networks, to cable's satellite competitors, and to the convergence of these technologies wi...

Get More Information

WIPL.UK 2021Event

Women, Influence & Power in Law UK (WIPL.UK) offers an opportunity for unprecedented exchange with senior female in-house lawyers.

Get More Information

General Counsel Summit (GCS) 2021Event

General Counsel Summit is the premier event for in-house counsel, hosting esteemed legal minds from all sectors of the economy.

Get More Information

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.