US Companies Resist Potential Class of Millions of Facebook Users in Labor Case
Lawyers for Amazon, T-Mobile and Cox contend a proposed class action targeting advertising practices on Facebook is "vague" and "subjective."
July 30, 2018 at 05:25 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A would-be class of potentially millions of Facebook users over the age of 40 who were excluded from seeing ads for certain U.S. job opportunities is overbroad and cannot be sustained, several major companies said in new court papers filed Monday in California.
The defendants, including Amazon.com, T-Mobile US and Cox Media Group, are fighting the plaintiffs' effort to certify a class in a novel age-discrimination lawsuit in San Jose federal court. Facebook Inc. was not sued.
The challengers—the Communications Workers of America and three named plaintiffs—contend the companies discriminated against potential older job applicants by targeting ads exclusively to a younger demographic. The lawsuit includes claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act as well as California state laws.
Lawyers for the three companies—Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher for Amazon; Winston & Strawn for Cox; and Davis Wright Tremaine for T-Mobile—contend the proposed class, which could include “nearly everyone over the age of 40 with a Facebook account,” is overbroad, vague and subjective. The attorneys also argue the “myriad individualized inquiries would overrun common questions, most notably because plaintiffs seek to apply the laws of multiple jurisdictions to millions of individuals, each of whom has her own qualifications, employment history, and application history.”
Jason Schwartz, a Gibson Dunn partner in Washington representing Amazon, declined to comment. Amazon also filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Monday.
Facebook's advertising platform has come under increased scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers and the AARP. In addition to the class action against Amazon and the other companies, the law firm Outten & Golden has filed dozens of age-bias allegations with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against Facebook and the companies that use the platform.
Facebook's platforms have long drawn criticism. The company last week agreed to make changes to an ad tool to resolve a discrimination investigation led by the Washington attorney general. Facebook removed the ability of advertisers to exclude certain protected groups, including ethnic and religious minorities, from seeing ads.
The Amazon lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California asks the court to declare that the companies' advertising and recruitment practices violate federal law. The complaint seeks an injunction that would stop companies from using the Facebook platform to discriminate against older job applicants.
Outten & Golden attorney Peter Romer-Friedman said the case is “emblematic of what the future looks like in employment law.”
“Employers use online and big data tools to do a ton of their decision-making and recruiting,” Romer-Friedman said Monday. “We are planning to stay on our toes when employers use these tools to discriminate.”
He said the case would present “opt-in” opportunities if the class is granted. That means the class could include any user, over 40, who would have been interested in a job opportunity advertised by the defendant companies. That could mean thousands to tens of millions of plaintiffs, he said.
Romer-Friedman said the class is certifiable because each defendant made the same argument that they were interested in reaching younger workers and “each and every company expressly excluded the workers from seeing the ads.”
“If this case can't be certified, it would be an unfortunate commentary on the federal courts power to stop discriminatory practices,” Romer-Friedman said. “This is an important case to ensure that digital recruitment and the digital economy provides equal opportunity for all who work.”
A hearing is scheduled for Jan. 24 in San Jose before U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman.
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 All'Don't Be Afraid to Dumb It Down': Top Fed Magistrate Judge Gives Tips on Explaining Complex Discovery Disputes
Newly Formed DEI Practices Expect Heightened Demand During Trump Administration
Major Plaintiff Victories: Women's Health Care Gets Expensive in Court
6 minute readAttorney Claims Phila. Roundup Trial Schedule Has Given 'Unfair' Preference to Certain Firms
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
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