Nike stands at the center of a discrimination lawsuit, with former employees levying accusations of bias on the basis of age and gender. The Nike manager suing over the bias claims that, after nine promotions and working her way up in the organization, she secured the position of Senior Director of Stores. However, despite the continued loyalty to the business, she alleged that the treatment she received was different from that given to younger male peers, with harsher scrutiny over her behaviour.
After mounting issues since 2021, she was fired for “failure to demonstrate leadership capability” and let go without severance. In retaliation, the manager and other women filed a sex discrimination suit against Nike. As the lawsuit unfolds, there are multiple aspects to consider about fair treatment within the workplace.
The Nike lawsuit evoked discrimination claims over an unfair firing after an employee felt she was treated differently from her male coworkers. (Image: Pexels)
The Nike Discrimination Lawsuit Brings Allegations of Age and Gender Bias Against the Organization
The Nike discrimination claims in 2025 are neither new nor occurring in isolation. Patricia Coleman, a former senior director at the company, claimed she was fired after complaining about the discrimination she was facing and was also let go without severance pay. She spent 25 years at the company after starting as a store manager in 1998, and remaining at the job long enough to see multiple promotions.
She alleged the real issues with discrimination began in 2021, when she started reporting to a different senior at her organization, and began noticing more instances of differential treatment. The plaintiff was reportedly left out of meetings and decisions about operational changes. She was also accused of violating company policy for organizing a work anniversary celebration that she largely paid for herself. Conflict between her and the director, James Dektas, continued to escalate, even resulting in HR intervention. However, her complaints to HR went largely unaddressed.
Before the Nike senior director filed the lawsuit, she attempted to use Nike’s internal Speak Up portal to seek help for her situation, but a single call from HR was the only response from the company. In January 2024, she was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease and requested minimal accommodations that included a day off and a day of remote work per week, but within a month, she was terminated over video call.
The Nike Age and Sex Discrimination Suit Includes Multiple Complaints of Bias
Nike’s discrimination lawsuit isn’t a complaint by a single female worker, but also includes allegations from other colleagues. When Coleman was let go after her diagnosis, she was terminated on grounds of “failure to demonstrate leadership capabilities,” but there were no specific examples of where she had fallen short. The abrupt decision and the lack of severance were difficult on the employee, and she also found other women who were in a similar position.
Two other female colleagues who reported to the senior director Dektas, were also terminated between February and April 2024 without severance. The bias claims in the Nike lawsuit state that male leaders who were let go around the same period received severance packages as part of the company-wide reorganization. Similar claims have also been filed by another female employee Lata Punjabi, who accused her former employer of unequal treatment compared to male colleagues, followed by an abrupt termination.
The Bias Claims Alleged in the Nike Lawsuit Showcase the Importance of Employer Intervention
The Nike lawsuit, filed on the basis of age and gender-based retaliation, showcases a culture of complexity, where employees feel unfairly treated by senior representatives within the organization. The company appears to have multiple portals and complaint systems for employees to share their concerns, which is a good start. Unfortunately, the nature of the response and the actions taken to follow up on employee concerns could be improved.
Nike has not responded to the discrimination lawsuit or the claims of bias that have been attributed to the organization, but the progress of the case might speak for the company. Having an efficient system to audit the organization for discriminatory practices and respond to employee concerns is an essential part of managing any business, big or small. While the actions of discrimination alleged here might be perpetuated by a handful of employees, the business is held accountable for allowing such actions to continue without oversight.
The lack of concrete reasoning for the firings also brings the process into question, leaving no room for employees to make a case for themselves. Early intervention can reduce the chances of matters escalating to the point of lawsuits, ensuring that internal conflicts are resolved amicably or conflicting parties are separated and allowed to continue with their duties. We’ll have to wait to see how the former Nike senior director’s lawsuit plays out in court, but the case does serve as a reminder for businesses to look internally and reassess how their operations are conducted.
Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, layoffs, and what to expect with the advent of AI.