39 F. Supp. 3d 407
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Eleven current/former female Forest employees sue Forest Laboratories and Forest Pharmaceuticals for gender-based pay and promotion discrimination.
- SAC seeks class and EPA collective action, alleging pattern or practice discrimination and disparate impact.
- Court grants in part/denies in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss; permits certain class claims to proceed and narrows putative class.
- Plaintiffs present numerous individual claims of lower pay, fewer promotions, maternity/leave-related conduct, and hostile work environment.
- Court addresses Plaintiff Barrett, Houser, Eckenrode, Smyth, Harley, Avila, Clinton, Lowder, Le, Jones, and Seard across multiple Title VII, EPA, FMLA, and PDA theories.
- Core issue is whether Plaintiffs plausibly plead pattern-or-practice discrimination, individual discrimination, and disparate impact under Title VII, plus EPA claims and related remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pattern or practice pay discrimination plausibility | Plaintiffs allege multiple instances of lower pay for women. | Barrett et al. rely on information-and-belief allegations and lack precise comparators. | Plausible pattern or practice claim; pay-disparity allegations survive at pleading. |
| Pattern or practice promotion discrimination plausibility | Women were precluded from promotions via discriminatory practices. | Some claims lack open positions or applicant intent. | Plausible pattern-or-practice promotion claim; some individual claims dismissed for lack of open-positions/applicant intent. |
| Pregnancy discrimination under Title VII | Pregnancy/maternity status affected evaluations and promotions. | Responding to pregnancy is not per se unlawful; claims require proof. | Plausible pregnancy-discrimination claims; pattern-practice and disparate-impact theories viable. |
| Equal Pay Act viability alongside Title VII | Male comparators paid more for substantially similar work; EPA claim appropriate. | Some plaintiffs lack explicit “equal work” comparisons or total wages data. | Ten plaintiffs plausibly state EPA claims; Seard’s EPA claim rejected for lack of equal-work pleading. |
| Class scope and continuing violation theory | Discrimination constitutes ongoing policy; 2008 start date appropriate under continuing violation. | Morgan/Chin limit to discrete acts; time-bar prevents earlier claims. | Class limited to those employed after the relevant look-back periods; continuing-violation theory not applicable to the class. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1977) (pattern or practice requires company-wide discrimination as standard operating procedure)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (U.S. 2002) (pleading standard does not require prima facie case to survive a motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must contain plausible facts, not mere conclusory statements)
- City of New York v. United States, 717 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2013) (pattern-or-practice proof can proceed with anecdotal evidence alongside statistics)