733 F.Supp.3d 1056
W.D. Wash.2024Background
- Jacob Atkinson sued Aaron’s LLC, alleging the company violated Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA) by posting a job ad that lacked required salary information.
- Atkinson claimed to represent a class of over 40 applicants who similarly applied to Aaron’s positions with non-compliant postings.
- After being filed in King County Superior Court, the case was removed to federal court by Aaron’s on diversity grounds.
- Aaron’s moved to dismiss, arguing Atkinson lacked standing and failed to state a claim, and questioned whether job applicants can privately enforce the statute.
- The court focused primarily on whether Atkinson, as a job applicant, had Article III standing and a statutory right to sue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a job applicant can bring a private suit for EPOA posting violations | The statute unambiguously allows applicants to sue | Only employees, not applicants, are authorized to bring civil actions | Yes, statute plainly allows applicants to sue |
| Whether non-Washington residents can be covered as applicants | EPOA covers out-of-state applicants willing to work or relocate to WA | Only WA residents are covered; Atkinson wasn’t a WA resident when applying | Out-of-state applicants are protected if employer engages business in WA |
| Whether Atkinson suffered a concrete injury for Article III standing | Mere statutory violation is a cognizable injury | No injury in fact; only a technical/statutory violation | No standing; technical violation alone isn’t enough—must allege good faith application and concrete harm |
| Whether Atkinson stated a claim under RCW 49.58.110 | Statute violated by improper job posting | No causation between posting and personal injury alleged | Not reached—dismissed for lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (standing is jurisdictional and must be affirmatively established)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requires concrete injury)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (statutory violations alone do not always confer standing; concrete harm is needed)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (standing requires a real, not abstract, injury)
- Burnside v. Simpson Paper Co., 123 Wn.2d 93 (WA anti-discrimination statutes should be liberally construed to effect their purpose)
- Thornell v. Seattle Serv. Bureau, Inc., 184 Wn.2d 793 (WA statutes can protect out-of-state plaintiffs against in-state businesses)
- Bostain v. Food Exp., Inc., 159 Wn.2d 700 (WA wage statutes apply to out-of-state work by employees of WA companies)