Case: Rasmussen v. Walt Disney Company

This is a case brought by female employees of The Walt Disney Company who alleged that Disney paid women less than their male counterparts.

On April 2, 2019, two long-time female Disney employees filed this putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California for Los Angeles County. The plaintiffs sued The Walt Disney Company, Walt Disney Pictures, and Hollywood Records, Inc. (collectively, “Disney”) under California law. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including a declaratory judgment on the illegality of Disney’s employment practices, implementation of programs promoting equal employment opportunities for women, and damages. 

Since filing their first complaint, the plaintiffs filed several amended complaints, including a fourth amended complaint on April 15, 2021. This fourth amended complaint supplemented the original complaint by adding several additional causes of action under California law, including the California Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”), and the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The plaintiffs alleged that Disney violated California law by failing to pay all wages due to employees who had been discharged or had quit, as well as disparate treatment, disparate impact, and pay secrecy. This complaint also added as defendants several additional companies owned or operated by Disney.

On June 30, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. For their FEHA and UCL claims, they requested certification of a class of non-union female Disney employees in California, with some exclusions. The plaintiffs also requested certification of an EPA and UCL subclass which would be limited to those class members to whom Disney assigned a job family. A “job family” was a group of jobs that involved similar work and required similar training, skills, and expertise, and was used by Disney as a key element in determining the appropriate salary grade and hiring range. 

On January 30, 2024, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. The court granted class certification for the EPA and UCL claims and related subclass, reasoning that the plaintiffs had set forth evidence establishing that Disney’s alleged conduct was uniformly applicable to class members and that those common issues would predominate over the individual inquiries. The court denied class certification for the FEHA claims, reasoning that common questions would not predominate over the individual inquiries and thus individual claims were a better method to litigate these claims. Certification of the FEHA claims, the court reasoned, would “devolve into mini-trials and make the litigation unmanageable.” 2024 WL 454593.

On November 25, 2024, plaintiffs filed a motion to seek approval of a settlement agreed upon by the two parties. Under this agreement, Disney agreed to hire a labor economist to conduct pay studies as well as an industrial consultant that will teach employees about benchmarking pay levels. Disney agreed to pay $43.25 million to settle the class action lawsuit. The settlement is awaiting approval by a judge. The case is ongoing as of February 2025.