October 24, 2022
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.
More information about the Cahill et al. v. Nike, Inc. case can be found here.