Discrimination

Equal Pay: Plaintiff alleged equal pay violations since she was not paid the same as registered, licensed sports agents who performed the same tasks including coordinating travel, managing expenses, securing living arrangements and acting as a liaison with the team. One session of mediation at the pre-litigation stage failed but the parties scheduled a private settlement conference and worked through the night, striking a deal at 5:00 am after the attorneys creatively introduced non-monetary terms into the negotiated agreement that were otherwise not recoverable in a lawsuit.

Equal Pay: Plaintiff, who served as interim CEO while management recruited for a full-time CEO, alleged equal pay violations because she was not paid the same as the full-time CEO despite performing identical job functions. Notably, the full-time CEO, who was recruited emergently, was paid 5x what Plaintiff was paid. Employer argued that Plaintiff, who specialized in marketing and had no experience as a CEO, did not coordinate with all departments of the company as a CEO normally would, and that the full-time CEO had decades of experience in the role.

Sexual Orientation Discrimination: Plaintiff, a female transgender person who worked in a restaurant, alleged harassment and touching by numerous coworkers and management. She claimed she was teased and groped and that management ignored her complaints, and that because of the abuse she was constructively terminated. Management’s defense was that her complaints were investigated and discipline was handed out when substantiated but for the complaints that were not confirmed, there was no discipline.

Age Discrimination: Plaintiff, aged 50, applied for a job in sales. During his interview, he was told that the company was looking for some young, fresh blood. He was not hired. Employer acknowledged that the words were used but that the decision to not hire Plaintiff was not related to his age, and that others in Plaintiff’s age group were hired.

Gender Discrimination: Female Plaintiff, who worked in a predominantly male field, alleged she was discriminated against in terms of sales territory and that her male coworkers received more favorable sales locations, which in turn resulted in higher sales commissions. Management denied favoritism and cited a longstanding practice that salespeople generally were given the territory where they lived and that such a determination was gender neutral.