Case: Moussouris v. Microsoft Corporation

2:15-cv-01483 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Filed Date: Sept. 16, 2015

Closed Date: Nov. 20, 2020

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 16, 2015, the plaintiff, a former female technical employee of Microsoft, filed a class action lawsuit in the Western District of Washington against Microsoft Corporation. The plaintiff, represented by Outten & Golden LLP, sued the defendant under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), and state law. The plaintiff alleged that as a result of the defendant’s policies, patterns, and practices, female technical employees received less compensation and were promoted less frequently than their male counterparts. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged that the force ranking system used by the defendant systematically undervalued female technical employees, resulting in lower pay and fewer promotions than male peers despite equal or better performance.

On October 27, 2015, the plaintiff amended her complaint to include additional named plaintiffs. On November 12, 2015, the defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on the following: plaintiffs’ disparate treatment claims on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to allege intent to discriminate by the defendant; plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims for failure to allege a causal relationship between the forced ranking system and the alleged disparate impact; and plaintiffs’ retaliation claims for failure to state a prima facie case of retaliation. Defendant also moved to strike the plaintiffs’ class definition on the grounds it was not ascertainable and the plaintiff's Title VII claims on grounds of timeliness.

On March 7, 2016, the court (Judge James L. Robart) denied the defendant’s motion to strike the class definition as it was not implausible on its face and the plaintiffs deserved to develop the facts and/or and definition of their class via class discovery. The court denied the motion to strike Title VII allegations on grounds of timeliness without prejudice as the motion raised a relevant dispute. The court denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's disparate treatment claims as the plaintiffs satisfied the pleading requirements of the claim. The court also denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s retaliation claim as the allegations created a plausible inference that the plaintiffs suffered at least one adverse employment action while working for the defendant. However, the Court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims as the plaintiffs did not demonstrate sufficient factual allegations to show how the forced ranking system caused a systematic undervaluation of female technical employees. The Court granted the plaintiffs thirty days to amend the complaint to resolve the lack of detail with respect to the disparate impact claim. 2016 WL 4472930.

On April 6, 2016, the plaintiffs submitted their second amended complaint, which contained additional factual allegations to support their disparate impact claim. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the disparate impact claims of the second amended complaint on April 25, 2016. On October 14, 2016, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff's disparate impact claim, finding the additional facts sufficient to make the plaintiffs’ claims plausible. 2016 WL 6037978.

Over the next year, the parties engaged in class discovery. On October 27, 2017, plaintiffs moved for class certification of female employees in Stock Levels 59-67 working in the Engineering and/or the I/T Operations Professions from September 16, 2012, to the present.

On April 6, 2018, the defendants moved for summary judgment. They argued that the plaintiffs were procedurally barred from bringing their claims due to statute of limitation issues and that they could not establish a proper case for disparate treatment. They also alleged that the named plaintiff's constructive discharge claim failed due to her continuing to work long after the work conditions became allegedly intolerable, and that their retaliation claims failed due to no adverse action being taken against them.

On June 25, 2018, the court denied the plaintiff's class certification in a sealed order. 2018 WL 3328418. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had not affirmatively demonstrated commonality of fact, typicality of claims, or adequate protection of interests among the class. On July 9, 2018, the plaintiffs began the appeal process in the Ninth Circuit to contest the denial of class certification.

On July 11, 2018, the court issued an order granting partial summary judgment for the defendants. 2018 WL 3584701. The defendant's motion for summary judgment for the denial of punitive damages under state law was granted, and the rest of their motion was denied, including leaving open the possibility for punitive damages under federal law. Due to identifying information contained within the order it has been sealed.

On December 24, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification, agreeing with the District Court that certain requirements for class certification were not satisfied here and concluding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion. On March 6, 2020, the parties were ordered to meet and confer on how the case should proceed, and a few months later, on November 16, 2020, the plaintiff's claim was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, with each party bearing its own attorney fees and costs. The case was then terminated on November 20, 2020.

	Document
2:15-cv-01483	Docket [PACER]	April 23, 2019	April 23, 2019 Docket
1 2:15-cv-01483	Class Action Complaint	Sept. 16, 2015	Sept. 16, 2015 Complaint
52 2:15-cv-01483	Order	March 7, 2016	March 7, 2016 Order/Opinion 2016 WL 4472930
55 2:15-cv-01483	Second Amended Class Action Complaint	April 6, 2016	April 6, 2016 Complaint
134 2:15-cv-01483	Order	Oct. 14, 2016	Oct. 14, 2016 Order/Opinion 2016 WL 6037978
191 2:15-cv-01483	Order Appointing Special Master	May 2, 2017	May 2, 2017 Order/Opinion 2017 WL 1652910
508 2:15-cv-01483	Order Denying Class Certification	July 6, 2018	July 6, 2018 Order/Opinion
512 2:15-cv-01483	Order on Motion for Summary Judgment	Nov. 11, 2018	Nov. 11, 2018 Order/Opinion 2018 WL 3584701
523 18-35791	Memorandum U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Dec. 24, 2019	Dec. 24, 2019 Order/Opinion 799 Fed.Appx. 459

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT Class Action Complaint against defendant(s) Microsoft Corporation with JURY DEMAND (Receipt # 0981-4161088) Attorney Sharon M Lee added to party Katherine Moussouris(pty:pla), filed by Katherine Moussouris. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 09/16/2015) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	Sept. 16, 2015	Sept. 16, 2015 RECAP
2	PRAECIPE TO ISSUE SUMMONS by Plaintiff Katherine Moussouris (Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 09/16/2015)	Sept. 16, 2015	Sept. 16, 2015 RECAP
3	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Kelly M. Dermody FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Katherine Moussouris (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4163135 (Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 09/17/2015)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
	Add and Terminate Judges	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
	Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
	Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
4	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Anne B. Shaver FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Katherine Moussouris (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4163156 (Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 09/17/2015)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
5	ORDER re 3 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Kelly M Dermody for Katherine Moussouris, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 09/17/2015)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
6	ORDER re 4 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Anne B. Shaver for Katherine Moussouris, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 09/17/2015)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
	Judge James L. Robart added. (ST)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
7	Summons electronically issued as to defendant(s) Microsoft Corporation. (ST) (Entered: 09/17/2015)	Sept. 17, 2015	Sept. 17, 2015 PACER
8	AMENDED COMPLAINT against defendant(s) Microsoft Corporation with JURY DEMAND, filed by Katherine Moussouris. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 10/27/2015) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER	Oct. 27, 2015	Oct. 27, 2015 RECAP
9	NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Mark Steven Parris on behalf of Defendant Microsoft Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Parris, Mark) (Entered: 10/28/2015) 1 Certificate of Service View on PACER	Oct. 28, 2015	Oct. 28, 2015 RECAP
10	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Adam T. Klein FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, Dana Piermarini (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4214113 (Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 10/30/2015)	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 RECAP
	Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 PACER
	Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 PACER
	Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 PACER
11	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Ossai Miazad FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, Dana Piermarini (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4214122 (Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 10/30/2015)	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 RECAP
12	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Katrina Eiland FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiffs Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, Dana Piermarini (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4214130 (Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 10/30/2015)	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 RECAP
13	ORDER re 10 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Adam T Klein for Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, and for Dana Piermarini, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 10/30/2015)	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 PACER
14	ORDER re 11 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Ossai Miazad for Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, and for Dana Piermarini, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 10/30/2015)	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 PACER
15	ORDER re 12 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Katrina L Eiland for Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, and for Dana Piermarini, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 10/30/2015)	Oct. 30, 2015	Oct. 30, 2015 PACER
16	STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER by parties (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Parris, Mark) (Entered: 11/05/2015) 1 Certificate of Service View on PACER	Nov. 5, 2015	Nov. 5, 2015 PACER
17	STIPULATION AND ORDER; dft's responsive pleading due 11/12/15; dft's motion to be noted for 12/18/15, opposition due 12/7/15, reply due 12/18/15 by Judge James L. Robart. (RS) (Entered: 11/06/2015)	Nov. 6, 2015	Nov. 6, 2015 PACER
18	ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due by 1/8/2016, FRCP 26f Conference Deadline is 12/28/2015, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 1/8/2016, by Judge James L. Robart. (CC) (Entered: 11/09/2015)	Nov. 9, 2015	Nov. 9, 2015 PACER
19	SCHEDULING ORDER REGARDING CLASS CERTIFICATION MOTION. Deadline to complete discovery on class certification - February 13, 2016. Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for class certification - March 16, 2016. by Judge James L. Robart. (CC) (Entered: 11/09/2015)	Nov. 9, 2015	Nov. 9, 2015 PACER
20	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Michael Levin-Gesundheit FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Plaintiff Katherine Moussouris (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4228760 (Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 11/12/2015)	Nov. 12, 2015	Nov. 12, 2015 PACER
21	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Lynne C. Hermle FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Microsoft Corporation (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4229211 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Parris, Mark) (Entered: 11/12/2015) 1 Certificate of Service View on PACER	Nov. 12, 2015	Nov. 12, 2015 RECAP
22	APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY Jessica R. Perry FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE for Defendant Microsoft Corporation (Fee Paid) Receipt No. 0981-4229226 (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Parris, Mark) (Entered: 11/12/2015) 1 Certificate of Service View on PACER	Nov. 12, 2015	Nov. 12, 2015 PACER
23	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, STRIKE AND/OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT by Defendant Microsoft Corporation. Oral Argument Requested. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss, Strike and/or for More Definite Statement) Noting Date 12/18/2015, (Parris, Mark) (Entered: 11/12/2015) 1 Proposed Order Granting Microsoft's Motion to Dismiss, Strike and/or for Mo View on PACER	Nov. 12, 2015	Nov. 12, 2015 PACER
24	CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Microsoft Corporation (Parris, Mark) (Entered: 11/12/2015)	Nov. 12, 2015	Nov. 12, 2015 PACER
25	ORDER re 20 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Michael Levin-Gesundheit for Katherine Moussouris, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 11/13/2015)	Nov. 13, 2015	Nov. 13, 2015 PACER
	Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice	Nov. 13, 2015	Nov. 13, 2015 PACER
	Order on Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice	Nov. 13, 2015	Nov. 13, 2015 PACER
26	ORDER re 21 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Lynne C Hermie Lynne C. Hermle for Microsoft Corporation, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) Modified on 1/27/2016 (DS). (Entered: 11/13/2015)	Nov. 13, 2015	Nov. 13, 2015 PACER
27	ORDER re 22 Application for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. The Court ADMITS Attorney Jessica R Perry for Microsoft Corporation, by Clerk William M McCool. No document associated with this docket entry, text only.NOTE TO COUNSEL: Local counsel agrees to sign all filings and to be prepared to handle the matter, including the trial thereof, in the event the applicant is unable to be present on any date scheduled by the court, pursuant to LCR 83.1(d).(DS) (Entered: 11/13/2015)	Nov. 13, 2015	Nov. 13, 2015 PACER
28	RESPONSE, by Plaintiffs Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, Dana Piermarini, to 23 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, STRIKE AND/OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT. Oral Argument Requested. (Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 12/07/2015)	Dec. 7, 2015	Dec. 7, 2015 PACER
29	REPLY, filed by Defendant Microsoft Corporation, TO RESPONSE to 23 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, STRIKE AND/OR FOR MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (Parris, Mark) (Entered: 12/18/2015)	Dec. 18, 2015	Dec. 18, 2015 PACER
30	REQUEST by Plaintiffs Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, Dana Piermarini for Judicial Notice re 28 Response to Motion (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Lee, Sharon) (Entered: 01/05/2016) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER	Jan. 5, 2016	Jan. 5, 2016 PACER
31	NOTICE of Association of Attorney by Michael C Subit on behalf of Plaintiffs Katherine Moussouris, Holly Muenchow, Dana Piermarini. (Subit, Michael) (Entered: 01/06/2016)	Jan. 6, 2016	Jan. 6, 2016 PACER

Case: Moussouris v. Microsoft Corporation

2:15-cv-01483 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details