On Tuesday, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC (SIE) moved for an order dismissing and striking all the equal pay and discrimination claims propounded by a worker who claims she was terminated due to discriminatory animus. In a supporting memorandum, Sony denied the allegations and said they were insufficiently pleaded and could not support a collective action.
Law Street Media’s previous coverage of the complaint explained that the plaintiff worked at SIE’s Northern California headquarters for five years. During that time, she allegedly suffered at the hands of policies and practices promoting male favoritism regarding both compensation and promotion. The complaint points to gender-based comments by male superiors, the fact that the plaintiff was never promoted during her tenure despite good performance, and the company’s alleged failure to recognize the plaintiff as a manager, despite the fact that she oversaw a direct report.
The plaintiff brought claims for workplace discrimination, wrongful termination, retaliation, failure to pay final wages, and negligent infliction of emotional distress under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law. The complaint also sought to certify a nationwide class and California and former employee subclasses.
Now, Sony argues that “despite the sweeping breadth of her lawsuit, the allegations in which SIE categorically denies, she fails to plead facts to support either her individual claims or the claims of the broad-based classes of women she seeks to represent.” The 35-page motion says that the plaintiff fails to identify a single policy, practice, or procedure that formed the basis of intentional discrimination or had a discriminatory effect on female employees.
In addition, SIE calls her claims of harassment “unactionable allegations of run-of-the-mill personnel activity.” The motion says that the plaintiff’s contentions regarding failure to promote, job assignments, and termination have been adjudged insufficient to state a California Fair Employment and Housing Act harassment claim.
The rebuttal also takes aim at the plaintiff’s collective action arguments in a conjunctively filed Rule 12(f) motion to strike. SIE argues that the ex-employee’s allegations are “highly individualized and based solely on her personal circumstances,” and thus provide no support for class treatment.
The motion hearing is scheduled for April 14 before Judge Laurel Beeler. The plaintiff is represented by ILG Legal Office P.C. Sony by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.
