Cahill et al. v. Nike, Inc.

On September 30, 2022, the Court issued an order agreeing with GBDH and co-counsel that Nike could not keep from the public: (a) statistical evidence of gender pay and promotion shortfalls in our expert reports; (b) the names of three former Nike executives who allegedly condoned and perpetuated gender discrimination and harassment at Nike; and (c) the fact that Nike started a “2018 pay equity promotional analysis” but later halted it based on the advice of counsel; never completing it and never telling Nike employees about its cessation. The Court’s ruling recognized that statistical evidence is integral to plaintiffs’ discrimination claims, that statistics alone could make a showing of discrimination, and that Nike’s alleged refusal to pay female employees fairly is a matter of public import ….”

In finding Nike’s “mere desire to keep this information confidential is inadequate ….,” the Court criticized Nike’s motion because it “resulted in tremendous expenditures of time by the Court – tactics which the defendant has been specifically cautioned against in the past.”  The Court also granted the motion to intervene by several media outlets for the purpose of contesting the parties’ stipulated redactions after the merits, but found that Plaintiffs adequately represented the media’s interests at the class certification stage.  Nike did not object to the Court’s order.


On January 10, 2022, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho, along with co-counsel, filed a motion for class certification on behalf of four plaintiffs and a proposed class of women who worked at Nike, Inc. Headquarters and allege that Nike has discriminated against them in pay, promotions, and initial job assignments on the basis of their gender.  The motion seeks an order certifying a class of several thousand women based on evidence that several uniform policies and practices resulted in Nike paying women less, promoting women less often, and placing women into lower initial job assignments compared to similar men.  The motion also seeks certification of intentional discrimination claims based on evidence that Nike knew about the discriminatory nature of its policies, but failed to correct them.  The hearing on this motion is expected in late Spring/Summer of 2022.


On February 26, 2019, a federal judge denied Nike’s attempt to dismiss Plaintiff’s class action collective action claims, finding that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged  “a company-wide practice of established policy at defendant’s headquarters that serves to intentionally discriminate against women in all categories of employment.  Plaintiffs allege defendant is aware of the discriminatory nature of its policies and has done nothing to correct them.  In addition, plaintiffs’ allegations of a hostile work environment condoned by defendant further reinforces the commonality of the claims that women at defendant’s headquarters suffer intentional discrimination regarding adverse employment actions as to salary and promotion potential.”


On August 9, 2018, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho – along with co-counsel Ackermann & Tilajef, P.C., India Lin Bodien, Attorney at Law; and Markowitz & Herbold PC – filed a gender discrimination suit against Nike, Inc. alleging that Nike fails to offer women pay and promotions equal to their male counterparts and fosters a work environment that is hostile to women. Plaintiffs, on behalf of a proposed class and collective of female employees at Nike Headquarters, seek full relief for women who have suffered from Nike’s discriminatory policies and practices, including just compensation, real opportunities for advancement, and systems that eliminate gender bias and sexual harassment.

“The way Nike marginalizes women at its headquarters is completely contrary to how it portrays itself to its customers as valuing women in sports and the importance of providing equal opportunity to play,” says GBDH attorney Byron Goldstein. “My firm has litigated some of the largest gender discrimination class actions, and we have seen that when companies take an opportunity like this to level the playing field for women in its workforce it’s a win-win for everyone.”

The lawsuit alleges claims under the federal Equal Pay Act, the Oregon Equal Pay Act, and the Oregon Equality Act. The case is filed in the Federal District Court of Oregon, case number 3:18-cv-01477-JR.

Women who want to share their Nike stories can contact GBDH at 1-800-295-0231 or


Case Articles

The Oregonian:  Courts reject Nike’s effort to keep executives’ info secret in discrimination suit

Case Documents