Floyd v. Insight Global LLC
2:23-cv-01680
W.D. Wash.Apr 25, 2024Background
- The plaintiff, Alexander Floyd, applied online for a Network Engineer position with Insight Global in Seattle, alleging the job posting lacked disclosure of wage or salary range required by Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110.
- Floyd filed a class-action suit alleging EPOA violations, seeking statutory damages, costs, and fees. The case was removed from state to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Insight Global moved to dismiss, arguing Floyd did not have standing or a valid cause of action as an applicant and had not pleaded a concrete injury.
- The EPOA was amended effective January 1, 2023 to require employers (with 15+ employees) to disclose pay and benefits in job postings, and allows “job applicants or employees” to pursue remedies.
- The court reviewed the plain meaning of the statute, legislative intent, and the sufficiency of Floyd’s alleged injury under Article III.
- The court granted dismissal for lack of standing, with leave for Floyd to amend his complaint to allege injury in fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can job applicants sue under RCW 49.58.110? | Floyd: Statute plainly authorizes applicants to sue. | Insight Global: Only employees have private cause of action. | Yes; plain text gives applicants the right to sue under 49.58.110. |
| Is a technical violation alone sufficient injury for Article III standing? | Floyd: Statutory violation itself constitutes injury. | Insight Global: No injury; only procedural harm without concrete impact. | No; must plead bona fide application and concrete, personal injury. |
| Did plaintiff plead sufficient facts to establish standing? | Floyd: Alleged loss of ability to negotiate/evaluate pay. | Insight Global: No factual basis for injury or bona fide interest. | No; conclusory allegations insufficient, but leave to amend granted. |
| Should the complaint be dismissed or can it be amended? | Floyd: Capable of pleading facts to support standing. | Insight Global: Complaint cannot be cured. | Dismissed without prejudice; amendment permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (standard for pleading plausibility at motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard for plausible claim)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing: injury in fact requirement)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (concrete injury requirement for statutory claims)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't, 523 U.S. 83 (standing as jurisdictional threshold)