PriceWaterhouseCoopers Ageism Class Action Ends in $11.6M Settlement

Claims that major accounting firm PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP engaged in ageist hiring practices was recently settled in a California federal court.

The parties reportedly agreed to end the PriceWaterhouseCoopers age bias class action lawsuit for $11.6 million. The settlement includes a Class of approximately 5,000 who applied for jobs at the firm.

According to the plaintiffs, PriceWaterhouseCoopers engaged in recruitment and hiring practices that led to a number of older workers that was “stunningly low,” pointing out that the average age of an accountant with the firm was 27.

This age, noted the plaintiffs, contradicts the average age of accountants and auditors nationwide, 35 percent of which are in their late 20s and early 30s.

The complaint detailed allegedly questionable hiring practices, such as recruiting for entry level positions only at college campuses and requiring job applicants to have a university-student affiliation.

The PriceWaterhouseCoopers class action lawsuit claimed that older workers were locked out of applying for entry level positions because the firm did not post such positions outside the college recruitment process, effectively stymieing applicants who were not currently in college from applying for those jobs.

In addition, the plaintiffs alleged that the company required workers to retire by age 60.

PriceWaterhouseCoopers’ hiring practices resulted in a workforce much younger than the general population in violation of the federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act, California Fair Employment Act, and Michigan state laws, argued the plaintiffs.

The accounting firm lost early on in the litigation when they asked a judge to toss the class action lawsuit in 2017. In 2019, a federal judge certified the proposed Class in the PriceWaterhouseCooper age bias class action lawsuit.

In addition to the $11.6 million settlement, PriceWaterhouseCooper has agreed to change its hiring practices by going beyond college recruitment with its entry level job announcements. In addition, age will be added as a protected category under the firm’s nondiscrimination policies.

Furthermore, the company has agreed to hire an independent consultant to propose recruitment ideas for older workers and train leadership in inclusive hiring practices. The firm will have two years to make the changes under the PriceWaterhouseCoopers age bias class action settlement.

According to the plaintiffs’ motion to approve the proposed class action settlement, they agreed to the deal because continuing with the litigation would likely lead to an appeal to the Ninth Circuit and ultimately, the United States Supreme Court.

Have you been subject to age discrimination by an employer or during a job search? Tell us your story in the comments section below.

Top Class Actions will post updates to this class action settlement as they become available. For the latest updates, keep checking TopClassActions.com or sign up for our free newsletter. You can also receive notifications when this article is updated by using your free Top Class Actions account and clicking the “Follow Article” button at the top of the post.

The plaintiffs and Class Members are represented by Jahan Sagafi, Laura Mattes, Adam Klein, Melissa Stewart, Daniel Stromberg and Lucy Bansal of Outten & Golden LLP, Daniel Kohrman, Laurie McCann and Dara Smith of AARP Foundation Litigation and Jennifer L. Liu of The Liu Law Firm PC.

The PriceWaterhouseCooper Age Bias Class Action Lawsuit is Steve Rabin, et al. v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Case No. 3:16-cv-02276, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Why Do Long-Term Disability Claims Get Denied?

How Do I Know If My Knee Replacement Is Loose?

Lemon Law | Defective New Vehicle Help

Chinese Laminate Flooring Class Action Settlement