On April 27, 2016, the plaintiff, a certified public accountant over the age of forty, filed this class and collective action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff sued PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) and California state law. The plaintiff, represented by Outten & Golden LLP, the AARP Foundation, and the Liu Law Firm, sought injunctive and monetary relief, claiming the defendant had wrongfully discriminated against people of the age of forty and older in their hiring practices. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant willfully utilized a biased recruiting system for entry-level positions that excluded and deterred workers ages forty and over, willfully implemented a mandatory early retirement policy that deterred and discriminated against applicants ages forty and over, and refused to hire applicants ages forty and over for the covered positions of the lawsuit.

On December 1, 2016, defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the ADEA does not permit job applicants, but only employees, to pursue disparate impact claims. This motion was denied by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 17, 2017, with the Court concluding that the ADEA does allow for job applicants to bring disparate impact claims. 236 F. Supp. 3d 1126.

On March 8, 2017, the defendant moved for certification under 28 U.S.C. §1296(b), asking for an interlocutory appeal regarding the extension of the ADEA to job applications. This motion was denied by the Court on April 17, 2017, on the grounds that the defendant did not satisfy the three conditions of 28 U.S.C. §1296(b) that would allow for an interlocutory appeal. The defendant succeeded in satisfying the condition that there was a difference of opinion between this court and the Eleventh Circuit but did not satisfy the condition that the subject of the interlocutory motion was on a controlling question of law or the condition that the appeal may have materially advanced the litigation.

On December 21, 2017, the plaintiff moved to certify a class of older applicants for employment at PwC and a hearing on the motion was held on February 27, 2018. On July 26, 2018, Judge Tigar denied the class certification and concluded that the plaintiff was “not substantially similar either to unqualified applicants or to deterred applicants, both of which categories are party of the larger collective action they seek to certify.” 2018 WL 3585143.

On August 27, 2018, the plaintiff filed under seal a renewed motion for class certification and a hearing was held on December 20, 2018. The case is ongoing.

Cade Boland - 10/12/2017
Sichun Liu - 03/21/2019


compress summary