Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
IBM has reached a $80,000 settlement with former employees who claim that they were affected by what they call anti-pregnancy discrimination by the company.
Per the terms of the settlement agreement, $30,000 of the fund will go to cover attorneys’ fees while the remaining $50,000 will be divided between the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency and the Class Members.
The LWDA will receive $37,500 and $12,500 will be distributed among the 12 former employees.
According to court documents, previous rulings in the issue had dismissed some claims made by the workers which reduced the amount of compensation that they received in the settlement.
Reportedly, the amount of the settlement that each worker will receive was determined by examining pay periods worked by the employees. Checks will be sent to Class Members via mail and, as is standard for settlements, all checks that remain uncashed after 180 days will be voided. The amounts of any uncashed checks will be deposited with the California Department of Industrial Relations Unpaid Wages Fund under the name of the Class Members, according to the settlement motion.
The joint motion notes that the settlement was reached on Jan. 16 after arm’s-length negotiations were conducted over the phone and via email.
According to court documents, the settlement represents a resolution of the workers’ claims that IBM violated the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), though the original IBM discrimination class action lawsuit initially included more claims.
The IBM pregnancy discrimination class action lawsuit was initially filed on Jan. 11, 2010. The IBM discrimination class action lawsuit went through several transformations.
Initially, the claims were class action claims but were then were moved to individual claims, asserting that IBM had violated California labor law. Later, IBM reportedly sought to limit the scope of the pregnancy discrimination claims. After these efforts, the scope of the claims was limited to PAGA claims for just 12 Class Members.
Though the scope was limited, a California federal judge did reject a March 2019 bid for summary judgement made by IBM. According to the judge, workers had presented sufficient evidence to suggest that pregnancy discrimination could have been at play.
The IBM pregnancy discrimination class action lawsuit was filed by May Moua, who says that she was targeted for a layoff because she was pregnant. She says that before the layoff, her supervisor asked if she planned to have more children. Additionally, she says that she was laid off while she was on disability leave for preterm labor.
According to Moua, the company engaged in pregnancy discrimination and had treated other employees in a similar manner. Initially, she had argued that IBM had violated multiple California laws, including the state constitution, PAGA, and the Fair Employment and Housing Act.
IBM is not the only company to have been accused of pregnancy discrimination — in recent months, both Dollar General and Frontier Airline have faced similar claims.
Have you ever experienced discrimination in the workplace? Tell us about it in the comments below.
Class Members are represented by Alan B. Bayer of Bayer Law & Mediation.
The IBM Pregnancy Discrimination Class Action Lawsuit is May Moua v. International Business Machines Corp., et al., Case No. 5:10-cv-0107, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
