Workplace Discrimination Class Actions: Fighting for Equality

Introduction

Workplace discrimination continues to be a pervasive issue in the modern labor market, affecting millions of employees across industries and job categories. Despite decades of civil rights legislation and company policies promoting diversity and equality, systemic discrimination based on gender, race, age, disability, and other protected characteristics remains a significant challenge.

When discrimination occurs at an institutional level, affecting groups of employees rather than isolated individuals, class action lawsuits become a powerful tool for addressing these widespread violations and securing meaningful change. These collective legal actions allow employees to join forces, pooling resources and evidence to challenge discriminatory practices that might be difficult to contest individually.

This article explores the history, impact, and evolution of workplace discrimination class actions, examining landmark cases that have shaped employment law, the various forms these lawsuits take, and how they serve as a mechanism for both compensating victims and driving institutional reform.

History of Workplace Discrimination Class Actions

The modern era of workplace discrimination class actions began following the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, particularly Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. However, it wasn't until the 1970s that class action lawsuits became a prominent strategy for addressing systemic workplace discrimination.

Several key developments shaped the evolution of these cases:

• Early precedents (1970s): Cases like Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) established the concept of "disparate impact" discrimination, allowing challenges to seemingly neutral policies that disproportionately affect protected groups.
• Expansion of protected classes: The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (1978), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) expanded the legal basis for discrimination claims beyond the original Title VII categories.
• The Civil Rights Act of 1991: This legislation strengthened workplace discrimination laws by allowing for compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination.
• Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011): This Supreme Court decision significantly raised the bar for class certification in employment discrimination cases, requiring "significant proof" of a company-wide discriminatory policy.
• Modern developments: Recent years have seen increased focus on intersectional discrimination, pay equity, and sexual harassment class actions, particularly in the wake of the #MeToo movement.

Throughout this history, workplace discrimination class actions have served as an important mechanism for institutional change, often leading to not just monetary settlements but also court-ordered reforms in hiring, promotion, and compensation practices.

Landmark Workplace Discrimination Cases

Several groundbreaking class action cases have fundamentally shaped how employment discrimination laws are interpreted and enforced:

• EEOC v. AT&T (1973): This early case resulted in AT&T agreeing to pay $15 million in back wages to women and minority workers and to implement an affirmative action program—one of the first major corporate discrimination settlements.
• Roberts v. Texaco (1996): African American employees sued Texaco for racial discrimination, with the case gaining national attention when recordings of executives making racist comments became public. The case settled for $176 million and led to significant diversity initiatives at the company.
• Stender v. Lucky Stores (1994): Female employees successfully challenged gender-based job assignments and promotions at the grocery chain. The case resulted in a $107 million settlement and changes to personnel practices.
• EEOC v. Mitsubishi Motors (1998): This sexual harassment class action culminated in a $34 million settlement and comprehensive changes to the company's policies regarding workplace harassment.
• McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch (2011-2013): African American financial advisors challenged the company's team formation and account distribution policies. Though initially denied class certification following Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a narrower class was later certified, leading to a $160 million settlement.
• Velez v. Novartis (2010): Female sales representatives sued the pharmaceutical company for gender discrimination in pay, promotion, and pregnancy discrimination, resulting in a $175 million settlement and significant policy changes.
• Pao v. Kleiner Perkins (2015): While not a class action, this individual gender discrimination case against a venture capital firm drew national attention to issues of gender bias in tech and finance, inspiring subsequent class actions in these industries.

These landmark cases demonstrate how class actions can shine a spotlight on discriminatory practices, create financial accountability for employers, and establish precedents that influence workplace policies and procedures across entire industries.

Gender Discrimination Class Actions

Gender discrimination class actions have addressed a wide range of issues affecting women in the workplace, including pay disparities, promotion barriers (the "glass ceiling"), pregnancy discrimination, and sexual harassment.

Notable gender discrimination class actions include:

• Dukes v. Wal-Mart: Though ultimately not certified as a class by the Supreme Court, this case involving 1.5 million female Walmart employees alleging pay and promotion discrimination transformed the landscape for employment class actions. Despite the setback, regional class actions against Walmart continued.
• Jock v. Sterling Jewelers: Female employees alleged systemic gender discrimination in pay and promotion opportunities. After over a decade of litigation, the case reached a $175 million settlement in 2022, covering approximately 68,000 women.
• Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs: Female investment bankers alleged systematic discrimination in evaluation, compensation, and promotion decisions. After years of litigation, including multiple class certification battles, the case continues to progress through the courts as a certified class action.
• Microsoft Gender Discrimination Litigation: Female technical employees alleged discrimination in performance evaluations, pay, and promotions. The case settled in 2020 for $3 million plus commitments to diversity initiatives.
• Nike Gender Discrimination Litigation (2018): Following public allegations of a toxic culture for women, a class action was filed alleging systemic pay discrimination and a hostile work environment. The case resulted in significant policy changes at the company.

Common remedies in gender discrimination settlements include back pay for wage disparities, compensatory damages, revised performance evaluation systems, transparent promotion criteria, oversight by independent consultants, and regular reporting on gender diversity metrics.

Recent gender discrimination class actions have increasingly focused on intersectional claims, recognizing that women of color and other subgroups often face compounded discrimination. Pay equity legislation in many states has also strengthened the legal foundation for challenges to gender-based compensation disparities.

Race Discrimination Class Actions

Race discrimination class actions have been instrumental in challenging systemic racism in hiring, promotion, compensation, and workplace culture. These cases often reveal patterns of discrimination that might be dismissed as isolated incidents when viewed individually.

Significant race discrimination class actions include:

• Coca-Cola Discrimination Litigation (2000): African American employees alleged systematic discrimination in evaluations, promotions, and pay. The case settled for $192.5 million and included creation of an external task force to oversee the company's diversity efforts for several years.
• Abercrombie & Fitch Discrimination Litigation (2003): The clothing retailer faced a class action alleging it discriminated against non-white applicants and employees in hiring and job assignments, favoring white employees for visible sales positions. The case settled for $40 million and extensive changes to hiring and marketing practices.
• Xerox Corporation Litigation (2008): African American sales representatives alleged race discrimination in work assignments, promotions, and compensation. The case settled for $12 million and significant changes to the company's practices.
• Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Race Discrimination (2013): African American financial advisors alleged systematic discrimination in client assignments and resources. The case settled for $160 million and policy changes.
• Tesla Factory Discrimination Litigation (ongoing): African American factory workers filed a class action alleging a racially hostile work environment, including racial slurs and discriminatory work assignments. The case is still in progress.

Modern race discrimination class actions increasingly focus on concepts like "matching bias" (where managers favor employees who share their demographic background), access to networking and mentorship opportunities, and subjective evaluation criteria that allow implicit bias to affect career advancement.

Racial discrimination class actions often seek not just monetary damages but also comprehensive reforms, including diversity training, revision of promotion criteria, diverse slate requirements for management positions, and regular analysis of racial disparities in employment outcomes.

Age Discrimination Class Actions

Age discrimination class actions typically involve allegations that employers systematically favor younger workers in hiring, retention, promotion, or compensation decisions. These cases are brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects workers 40 years of age and older.

Key age discrimination class actions include:

• Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche (1995): This pioneering case established that ADEA cases could proceed as collective actions (similar to class actions), allowing employees to join together in challenging age discrimination. The case ultimately settled for $20 million.
• Arnett v. California Public Employees Retirement System (2007): Disabled public safety officers alleged age discrimination in disability benefits calculations. The case settled for $250 million.
• Google Age Discrimination Litigation (2019): Older job applicants alleged systematic age discrimination in Google's hiring practices. The case settled for $11 million and commitments to train recruiters and managers on age bias.
• IBM Age Discrimination Litigation (ongoing): Following investigative reporting that revealed patterns of targeting older workers for layoffs, multiple age discrimination cases have been filed against IBM, including collective and class actions.
• PwC Age Discrimination Litigation (2020): The accounting firm faced allegations of age discrimination in hiring for entry-level positions. The case settled for $11.625 million and agreements to revise recruiting practices.

Age discrimination cases often challenge corporate restructuring and reduction-in-force decisions that disproportionately impact older workers. They frequently cite evidence like age-related comments from management, statistical disparities in layoff patterns, or recruiting practices that target "digital natives" or recent graduates.

Remedies in age discrimination settlements typically include monetary compensation, changes to reduction-in-force protocols, revision of job descriptions and recruitment materials to eliminate age-biased language, and training on unconscious age bias.

Disability Discrimination Class Actions

Disability discrimination class actions typically challenge company-wide policies or practices that systematically disadvantage employees with disabilities. These cases are brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and sometimes state disability laws, which often provide greater protections.

Notable disability discrimination class actions include:

• EEOC v. Walmart (2020): The EEOC brought a nationwide class action alleging Walmart's attendance policy discriminated against employees with disabilities by not allowing sufficient flexibility for disability-related absences. The case settled for $20 million and policy changes.
• EEOC v. Verizon (2011): This case challenged the company's "no fault" attendance policy that allegedly penalized employees for disability-related absences. The case settled for $20 million and policy revisions.
• National Federation of the Blind v. Target (2008): While not an employment case, this landmark class action established that the ADA applies to websites, leading to significant improvements in workplace technology accessibility.
• United Airlines ADA Litigation (2012): The Seventh Circuit ruled that the ADA may require employers to reassign employees with disabilities to vacant positions as a reasonable accommodation, influencing workplace accommodation policies nationwide.
• FedEx Ground Package System ADA Litigation (2020): Deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers alleged systematic failure to provide accommodations including ASL interpreters. The case settled for $3.3 million and comprehensive policy changes.

Disability discrimination class actions often focus on reasonable accommodation policies, leave policies, workplace accessibility, or medical screening practices. These cases have become increasingly important as mental health conditions, autoimmune disorders, and other "invisible disabilities" gain greater recognition under the law.

Settlements in disability discrimination class actions typically include not just monetary relief but also comprehensive overhauls of accommodation procedures, centralized accommodation tracking, manager training, revisions to medical leave policies, and improvements to workplace accessibility.

The Challenge of Class Certification

Since the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, obtaining class certification has become one of the most significant hurdles in workplace discrimination class actions. To achieve certification, plaintiffs must demonstrate:

• Commonality: That there are "questions of law or fact common to the class," meaning class members suffered the same type of injury resulting from the same conduct.
• Typicality: That the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of those of the entire class.
• Numerosity: That the class is so large that individual joinder of all members would be impracticable.
• Adequacy: That the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

For employment discrimination cases seeking monetary damages, plaintiffs must also satisfy the "predominance" requirement of Rule 23(b)(3), showing that common questions predominate over individual ones.

Post-Dukes strategies for achieving class certification include:

• Focusing on specific discriminatory practices rather than general allegations of bias
• Challenging discrete employment policies with measurable disparate impacts
• Utilizing statistical evidence more effectively to demonstrate systematic disparities
• Pursuing regional or unit-specific classes rather than company-wide classes
• Seeking hybrid certification with injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3)
• Using collective actions under the FLSA or ADEA for wage and age discrimination claims, which have lower thresholds than Rule 23 class actions

The class certification battle is often the most critical phase of workplace discrimination class actions. If certification is granted, employers face potentially massive liability and significant pressure to settle. If denied, plaintiffs are left to pursue individual claims, which may not be economically viable for many employees.

Settlement Structures and Remedies

Workplace discrimination class action settlements typically include both monetary and injunctive relief components, addressing both compensation for past harm and prevention of future discrimination.

Monetary relief often includes:

• Back pay: Compensation for lost wages due to discriminatory pay practices or failure to promote
• Front pay: Prospective wage loss for employees unlikely to be promoted due to past discrimination
• Compensatory damages: Payment for emotional distress and other non-economic harms
• Punitive damages: Additional payments to punish particularly egregious conduct
• Service awards: Additional payments to named plaintiffs who took on the risk and burden of representing the class
• Attorneys' fees: Payment to class counsel, typically calculated as a percentage of the recovery

Injunctive relief (programmatic relief) frequently includes:

• Revised hiring, promotion, and compensation policies with objective criteria
• Enhanced anti-discrimination and anti-harassment training
• Improved complaint procedures for reporting discrimination
• Implementation of mentoring programs for underrepresented groups
• Diversity initiatives with specific goals and timetables
• Regular reporting of diversity metrics to class counsel or external monitors
• External monitoring by appointed special masters or consent decree monitors

Distribution of settlement funds may follow various models:

• Formula-based distribution: Allocating funds based on formulas that consider factors like length of employment, position level, and demonstration of individual harm
• Claims process distribution: Requiring class members to submit claims detailing their experiences of discrimination, with awards determined by a special master
• Hybrid approaches: Combining base payments to all class members with additional payments based on individual claims

The most effective settlements include both substantial monetary compensation and meaningful programmatic changes with accountability mechanisms to ensure long-term compliance.

How to Participate in Workplace Discrimination Class Actions

If you believe you've experienced workplace discrimination that may affect others at your company, here are steps to consider:

Identifying potential class claims:

• Look for systemic issues affecting multiple employees in protected groups, such as disparities in hiring, promotion rates, or compensation
• Note potentially discriminatory policies or practices that apply company-wide
• Document patterns of biased decision-making or comments by management
• Consider whether subjective evaluation criteria may be allowing bias to affect employment decisions

Initial steps to take:

• Document everything: Keep detailed records of potentially discriminatory incidents, including dates, times, locations, people involved, witnesses, and specific statements or actions
• Follow internal complaint procedures: Report discrimination through your employer's established channels, giving the company an opportunity to address the issues
• File an EEOC charge: Before filing a lawsuit, you must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or equivalent state agency, which is a prerequisite for most discrimination claims
• Connect with similarly affected colleagues: If appropriate, discuss your experiences with trusted coworkers who may have faced similar issues
• Consult with an employment attorney: Seek legal counsel experienced in employment discrimination class actions to evaluate your situation

If you learn of an existing class action:

• Respond to class notices: If you receive notice that you're a potential class member, carefully review it and follow instructions for participating
• Meet deadlines: Note any deadlines for opting in, opting out, or submitting claims
• Consider your options: Evaluate whether participating in the class action or pursuing an individual claim better serves your interests
• Provide requested information: Respond to any requests for information from class counsel
• Stay informed: Monitor the progress of the case through the settlement website or communications from class counsel

Remember that participating in a class action often requires minimal effort from most class members, as the named plaintiffs and their attorneys handle most aspects of the litigation. However, your cooperation and testimony may strengthen the case and help secure justice for yourself and your colleagues.

The Future of Workplace Discrimination Litigation

Workplace discrimination class actions continue to evolve in response to changing legal standards, workplace practices, and social movements. Several key trends are shaping the future of this litigation:

• Algorithmic discrimination claims: As employers increasingly use artificial intelligence and algorithms in hiring, promotion, and evaluation processes, new class actions are challenging these systems for perpetuating or amplifying bias.
• Intersectional discrimination: More cases are recognizing and addressing the unique forms of discrimination faced by individuals with multiple protected characteristics, such as women of color or older workers with disabilities.
• Pay transparency laws: New state laws requiring pay transparency are providing employees with more information to identify and challenge systemic compensation disparities.
• Remote work discrimination: The shift to remote and hybrid work models has created new potential bases for discrimination claims, including disparate treatment in remote work access and proximity bias affecting career advancement.
• Alternative class structures: In response to certification challenges, plaintiffs' attorneys are developing new approaches, including smaller, more targeted classes, collective actions under the FLSA or ADEA, or parallel individual arbitrations.
• Focus on toxic culture: Post-#MeToo, more cases are challenging systemic harassment or hostile work environments as discrimination against entire groups of employees.
• ESG pressure: Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) investing criteria are creating additional pressure on companies to address systemic discrimination issues proactively to avoid litigation.

Legislative and judicial developments will continue to shape this landscape. Potential changes to class action rules, amendments to anti-discrimination laws, or shifts in Supreme Court composition could significantly impact the viability and scope of workplace discrimination class actions.

Despite the challenges, workplace discrimination class actions remain a vital tool for addressing systemic inequality in employment. As workplaces and discrimination take new forms, these collective actions will continue to evolve to protect workers' rights and promote equal opportunity.

Conclusion

Workplace discrimination class actions have played a pivotal role in advancing employment equality, challenging systemic biases that individual lawsuits might never address effectively. By aggregating similar claims and leveraging statistical evidence of disparities, these cases have forced employers across industries to confront and remedy discriminatory practices.

While these cases face significant procedural hurdles, particularly at the class certification stage, they continue to drive meaningful change through both substantial settlements and court-ordered reforms. The multimillion-dollar settlements in landmark cases not only compensate affected employees but also create powerful financial incentives for companies to proactively address discrimination.

Beyond the monetary impact, workplace discrimination class actions have transformed corporate cultures and practices, leading to more transparent and objective employment systems, comprehensive diversity initiatives, and enhanced accountability mechanisms. The awareness raised by high-profile cases has also inspired wider industry reforms and legislative changes.

For employees experiencing discrimination, these collective actions provide a pathway to justice that might otherwise be inaccessible due to the costs and risks of individual litigation. By joining with similarly situated colleagues, workers can amplify their voices and challenge even the most powerful employers.

As workplace structures and technologies continue to evolve, workplace discrimination class actions will remain an essential tool for ensuring that the promise of equal employment opportunity becomes a reality for all workers, regardless of their gender, race, age, disability status, or other protected characteristics.