IKEA Age Discrimination Class Action Moves Forward

A judge has trimmed some claims from an IKEA age discrimination class action lawsuit, but will allow workers to pursue some of their allegations against the furniture giant.

U.S. District Judge Anita B. Brody of Pennsylvania dismissed some claims made by the consumers, on the basis that they had not provided enough evidence.

This decision was made in response to IKEA’s request to have the age discrimination class action lawsuit dismissed entirely.

The plaintiffs argued that IKEA intentionally discriminates against older employees, instead favoring younger workers for opportunities like training and promotion.

However, the judge determined that the workers did not identify a “specific test, requirement, or practice” within the policies they challenged that “has an adverse impact on older workers.” As a result, she determined that the workers would not be allowed to claim that three IKEA policies violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

However, claims around two other IKEA policies did survive the judge’s cuts to the age discrimination class action lawsuit. The workers made a disparate impact claim, arguing at that IKEA policies have an impact on the older workers’ promotion rates compared to promotion rates of younger workers.

IKEA had moved to dismiss the disparate impact claim, saying that the workers did not provided enough evidence and did not made a claim for which relief could be granted. 

In the 2019 dismissal motion, IKEA also argued that the claim should be dismissed because the workers had already argued that the same policies were discriminatory, and therefore could not rely on those same policies for an unintentional disparate impact claim.

The judge disagreed with IKEA’s arguments regarding this claim, and determined that the workers could indeed pursue these allegations.

IKEA had not sufficiently established that the company did not discriminate, so the claims could move forward. The judge also said that though IKEA had attempted to claim that the workers had not shown that certain company policies were neutral in order to pursue a disparate impact claim, if the policies were interpreted in another way, they could qualify as neutral.

Pointing to one policy that the workers challenged, Judge Brody said that the policy favors applicants who are willing to relocate, as well as “rescinding relation assistance offers are specific employment practices that could be shown to have a disparate impact on older workers” if those older workers are less willing or able to relocate for a promotion.

According to the judge, a “facially neutral policy” can actually be a mechanism for discrimination, either intentional or unintentional.

Have you experienced discrimination in the workplace? Tell us about it in the comments below.

The workers are represented by Julie A. Uebler, Laura C. Mattiacci, Stephen G. Console, Susan M. Saint-Antoine and Brian Farrell of Console Mattiaci Law LLC.

The IKEA Age Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit is Brandon Paine v. IKEA Holding US Inc., et al., Case No. 2:19-cv-00723, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

N.W.T Government Is Facing a Health Privacy Breach Lawsuit

9/11 Health Effects: Leukemia on the Rise

IBM Class Action Alleges Privacy Law Infringement

Jury Awards $67.5M To Miners in 3M Dust Mask Black-Lung Lawsuit