Milito v. Snap Inc
2:25-cv-00387
W.D. Wash.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiff John Milito brought a class action in Washington state court against Snap Inc. (Snapchat) for alleged violations of Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), specifically the pay transparency requirements in RCW 49.58.110.
- Milito alleged he and other applicants suffered harm because Snap did not disclose required wage/salary ranges in job postings for positions in Washington.
- Snap removed the case to federal court. Milito filed a motion to remand back to state court, arguing improper federal jurisdiction.
- Milito only alleged that he applied for a job without seeing pay information, not that he was qualified, interviewed, or offered a position.
- The main argument involved whether such harm alleged (i.e., lost time applying) satisfied Article III standing for federal jurisdiction.
- The Court evaluated Milito’s standing as an Article III requirement, central to federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Milito suffered a concrete injury sufficient for Article III standing | Lost valuable time and could not negotiate pay without required disclosure | No concrete harm; no interview or offer; at most a technical violation | No standing; Milito failed to allege a concrete and particularized injury |
| Whether EPOA violation alone confers Article III standing | Statutory violation itself should provide standing | Statutory violation alone is not enough without concrete harm | Statutory violation, without real harm, does not confer Article III standing |
| Whether the Court should await guidance from the WA Supreme Court (Branson case) | Decision could impact definition of "applicant" under EPOA | Remand is futile if pending Branson limits definition of applicants | No need to wait for Branson; lack of standing resolves federal jurisdiction |
| Whether case should be remanded to state court | Yes, due to lack of federal standing | No, federal question jurisdiction exists | Granted; remanded to state court |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (Supreme Court decision clarifying that a statutory violation alone does not necessarily confer Article III standing)
- TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (Established Article III standing requires concrete injury)
- Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (Standing is essential for federal jurisdiction)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Sets out the test for Article III standing)