Former WeWork Exec's Suit Claims Gender Pay Inequity
Lisa Bridges, who headed the company's compensation programs, said in a complaint filed in Manhattan Supreme Court that WeWork had a "dearth" of women in senior-level positions and paid women "significantly less than men."
June 21, 2019 at 04:12 PM
4 minute read
A former WeWork Cos. executive has accused the workspace-sharing startup and the company's co-president of gender discrimination and retaliation, claiming that she had been forced out of her job after repeatedly raising concerns with management.
Lisa Bridges, who headed the company's compensation programs, said in a complaint filed Thursday in Manhattan Supreme Court that WeWork had a “dearth” of women in senior-level positions and paid women “significantly less than men.”
According to the filing, Bridges raised the issues late last year with Jennifer Berrent, WeWork's co-president and former chief legal officer, but was rebuffed and eventually put on leave amid an effort to discredit her. In one instance, Bridges said that Berrent justified the pay disparities, saying, “men take risks and women don't.”
A spokeswoman for WeWork on Friday called the suit “meritless” and said the company intended to fight it.
“Jen Berrent is of the highest moral and ethical character, and we stand behind her completely,” the spokeswoman said in a statement. “WeWork is committed to being an equitable and welcoming workplace for all employees, and we will continue to support women leaders at all levels of the company.”
The lawsuit, filed in New York County Supreme Court, came weeks after a construction executive accused the company of age discrimination, and as WeWork is ramping up for an initial public offering.
According to the complaint, pay-equity problems were well known to Berrent and the company's leadership. The filing said that a previous internal study revealed a significant companywide pay gap, which had never been addressed or disclosed to workers.
In 2018, Bridges directed WeWork's people analytics team to conduct a gender pay analysis, which the complaint said revealed that women were compensated at much lower levels than men, especially with regard to equity grants. According to the filing, Bridges discovered shortly after her arrival at WeWork that, out of 58 grant awards totaling more than $1 million, only three had gone to women.
Bridges said she took her findings to WeWork's senior leadership in October, but the company showed “no interest” in addressing the issues. According to the complaint, Berrent acknowledged the findings, but defended the disproportionate pay.
“Men demand more money. Women just say yes,” Berrent responded, according to the complaint.
Bridges said she later refused to represent publicly that no such pay gap existed, ultimately contributing to her eventual ouster from the firm. Bridges said that Berrent cut her out of important meetings, and ultimately rendered her unable to do her job.
When she complained about Berrent's behavior, the suit said, Bridges was abruptly put on leave, while WeWork engaged a law firm to investigate her claims. Meanwhile, Bridges said, the company tried to draw out the probe, while seeking out her replacement and asking employees to dig up “dirt” on her.
“Although the investigators were supposed to [be] investigating claims relating to equal pay practices and related retaliation against plaintiff, WeWork employees were being asked to provide negative information about plaintiff,” the complaint said. ”More than two months passed without a single communication to plaintiff from WeWork or the investigators as to what was going on with the investigation or whether she would ever be allowed to return to her job.”
The six-count lawsuit accused WeWork of discrimination, gender-based harassment, retaliation and equal pay violations under New York labor law.
The case is captioned Bridges v. WeWork.
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'Innovation Over Regulation': Tech Litigators and Experts Share Insights on the Future of AI, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Under Trump
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Dana Rao Built a 'Yes' Culture at Adobe and Why He Walked Away
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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