A jury has officially held Nike liable in a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by a former employee. Ruling in favor of the employee on all counts, Nike will be expected to pay at least $7.5 million in punitive damages, along with $19,740 as back pay as a result of its “willful” violation of the Federal Equal Pay Act. This far exceeds the $2 million that the plaintiff’s team had initially suggested in damages.
The allegations of gender discrimination levied against Nike stem from the former engineer’s complaints that she paid less than her male colleagues and also did not see promotions on the same scale and speed as they were able to access. This is precisely what the Federal Equal Pay Act is intended to prevent, ensuring that employees performing jobs that require “equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions,” are paid the same as the opposite sex, unless the payment is made based on seniority, merit, differential performance numbers, or on factors other than sex.
Nike could still file an appeal to revisit the case and has expressed disappointment in the outcome. With issues like this bringing attention to the matter, it’s possible that calls for pay transparency could soon grow louder, ensuring that organizations are more forthcoming about fair and equal pay.
After an 8-year wait, a former employee’s lawsuit on pay and promotion discrimination has resulted in a jury verdict against Nike. (Image: Pexels)
Nike Sex Discrimination Case Ends in an Expensive Lawsuit That Drives an Important Point Home for Employers
What started as a case led by four separate women in pursuit of a class action lawsuit against Nike in 2018 eventually led to the other parties settling with the sportswear company, leaving only Heather Hender to carry the lawsuit forward. The case was filed at a time when the company stood at the center of considerable public criticism after a New York Times article shed light on the “toxic boy’s club” that had been brewing inside the organization, leaving the careers of its female employees stunted, while causing them to feel constantly marginalized at work.
Nike soon eliminated a number of its key executives, but the allegation and the sex discrimination lawsuit remained. According to the lawsuit filings, the plaintiff worked at Nike as a process engineer from 2015 to 2020 at its headquarters in Washington County. The allegations suggested that the culture at Nike showed a preference for promoting male colleagues much faster than their female counterparts, and that it also paid them more for substantially similar roles performed. It also states that when the matter was brought to their attention, Nike failed to rectify the situation. The other ongoing lawsuits against Nike for age and gender discrimination suggest as much.
While the original lawsuit focused on pay and promotion discrimination within the organization as a whole, the case now focuses solely on Hender’s employment at the company. Nike’s defense during the trial reportedly hinged on proving that Hender’s role at the organization was different from those she was comparing her pay with, requiring a different set of qualifications, and this was the reason for her difference in pay. The jury verdict in Nike’s sex discrimination lawsuit was led by a group of seven men and one woman, who announced their decision following a six-day trial and a day of deliberation.
Addressing Discrimination Within the Workplace Remains a Top Priority for HR
While Nike was able to avoid a class action lawsuit and isn’t required to make any operational changes as a direct result of this case, it does evoke questions of what it will take to achieve equality in the workplace. As the EEOC continues to push forth policies to stop collecting data on race and sex in the workplace, we may see a shift in how employers handle employee management data. The proposed end of EEO-1 reporting could vastly change how such cases of discrimination are explored in the future, complicating the exploratory phase for both employers and employees, straining tensions between the two further.
As has also been said, data is often key to unlocking many aspects of day-to-day operations, whether by facilitating decision-making or building a defence against unfair allegations. Organizations that treat their workers fairly should have no cause to cease collecting data integral to their operations and building transparency into every facet of their business. A future administration will likely reinstate such reporting if the EEOC chair succeeds in his mission to eliminate the established systems, adding additional pressure on employers to revive it once more.
As best practices, employers should continue collecting data that pertains to their workforce, maintaining clear records of their approach to management. Treating workers fairly and ensuring that all workers are correctly compensated for their roles isn’t as difficult as it might seem. For those worried about straying off track, pay transparency and regular internal audits could be helpful. As we wait to see if Nike challenges the jury verdict on the discrimination lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, it might be a good time to reflect and evaluate where things stand within your own organization.
What are your main takeaways from the discrimination lawsuit against Nike? Share your thoughts with us. Subscribe to The HR Digest for more insights on workplace trends, layoffs, and what to expect with the advent of AI.
