Rabin

Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Good Law
236 F. Supp. 3d 1126·2017 WL 661354·129 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1715·2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23224
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 17, 2017Case No. 16-cv-02276-JSTCalifornia3,440 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tigar, J.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

Re: ECF No.-

Before the Court is Defendant Price-waterhouseCooper LLP’s (“PwC” or “Defendant”) Motion for Judgment on- the Pleadings. ECF No. 55. Defendant seeks judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff Steve Rabin and John Chapman’s (“Plaintiffs”) second cause of action — a disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination, in Employment Act (“ADEA”). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action, alleging that PwC “engages in systemic and pervasive discrimination against older job applicants.” ECF No. 62 at 7. Plaintiffs claim that PwC’s “maintains hiring policies and practices for giving preference to younger employees that result in the disproportionate employment of younger applicants.” ECF No. 1 at 3. According to the complaint, these practices also deter older applicants' from applying for positions at PwC in the first place. Id. at 4. On July 22, 2016, PwC answered' the complaint. ECF No. 32. Plaintiffs filed an' amended complaint on September 8, 2016, ECF No. 42, and Defendant answered again on September…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.