Atkinson v. Aaron's LLC, 2:23-cv-01742

The plaintiff, Jacob Atkinson, applied for a job with Aaron’s, LLC, alleging their job posting failed to disclose the wage scale or salary range, violating Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110.
Atkinson filed a putative class action in state court on behalf of himself and others who purportedly applied to Aaron’s postings lacking proper disclosures; Aaron’s removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.
Aaron’s moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and asserting that job applicants lack a private right of action under the EPOA.
The case is one of 27 nearly identical lawsuits against companies in Washington, all challenging job posting compliance since the EPOA’s amendment effective Jan. 1, 2023.
The key focus was whether Atkinson, as a job applicant (not an employee), had standing and a cognizable claim under the EPOA, and if technical statutory violations amount to concrete injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Can job applicants sue under RCW 49.58.110?	Statute authorizes applicants to civil remedies, not just employees.	Only employees can bring such actions; statutes limit applicant remedies.	Applicants may bring civil actions under the statute.
Must applicants be Washington residents?	Out-of-state applicants can be protected if willing to relocate/work remotely.	EPOA does not apply to non-residents; extraterritorial doctrine bars claim.	No residency requirement; statute protects non-residents.
Does a technical violation confer Article III standing?	Any statutory violation is a real, concrete injury.	No concrete harm without bona fide application/good faith; technical violation isn’t enough.	Technical violation alone is insufficient; must allege bona fide intent and concrete injury.
Has plaintiff stated a claim under RCW 49.58.110?	Alleged sufficient facts and harm from lack of disclosure.	No causation or sufficient harm alleged; complaint is conclusory.	Dismissed for lack of standing with leave to amend.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for facial plausibility)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading requirements, plausibility)
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (Article III standing requires concrete injury, not just statutory violation)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (test for Article III standing)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (standing is a threshold Article III issue)
Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing as an element of subject matter jurisdiction)
Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205 (liberal standing interpretation under civil rights statutes)