Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 STEVE RABIN, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,

11

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02276-JST
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS Re: ECF No. 55

12

13

Before the Court is Defendant PricewaterhouseCooper LLP’s (“PwC” or “Defendant”)

14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. ECF No. 55. Defendant seeks judgment as a matter of

15 law on Plaintiff Steve Rabin and John Chapman’s (“Plaintiffs”) second cause of action—a

16 disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”). For the

17 reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the motion.

18 I. BACKGROUND

19

On April 27, 2017, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action, alleging that PwC “engages in

20 systemic and pervasive discrimination against older job applicants.” ECF No. 62 at 7. Plaintiffs

21 claim that PwC’s “maintains hiring policies and practices for giving preference to younger

22 employees that result in the disproportionate employment of younger applicants.” ECF No. 1 at 3.

23 According to the complaint, these practices also deter older applicants from applying for positions

24 at PwC in the first place. Id. at 4. On July 22, 2016, PwC answered the complaint. ECF No. 32.

25 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 8, 2016, ECF No. 42, and Defendant

26 answered again on September 30, 2017, ECF No. 47.

27

Then, on January 9, 2017, Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings, asking the

28 court to enter judgment in favor of PwC as to Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claim under the ADEA.

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 ECF No. 60. Defendant argues that the ADEA does not permit job applicants to bring disparate

2 impact claims.

3 II. LEGAL STANDARD

4

“After the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for

5 judgment on the pleadings.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The analysis for Rule 12(c) motions for

6 judgment on the pleadings is “substantially identical to [the] analysis under Rule 12(b)(6) . . . .”

7 Chavez v. United States, 683 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir. 2012) (quotations omitted). To evaluate a

8 Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the court accepts the material facts alleged in the complaint,

9 together with reasonable inferences to be drawn from those facts, as true. Navarro v. Block, 250

10 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A plaintiff must allege facts that are enough to raise her right to

11 relief “above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). A

12 “judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when, taking all the allegations in the non-moving

13 party’s pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fajardo v.

14 Cty. of Los Angeles, 179 F.3d 698, 699 (9th Cir. 1999).

15 III. ANALYSIS

16

“The ADEA is remedial and humanitarian legislation and should be liberally interpreted to

17 effectuate the congressional purpose of ending age discrimination in employment.” Naton v. Bank

18 of California, 649 F.2d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Dartt v. Shell Oil Co., 539 F.2d 1256

19 (10th Cir. 1976). To that end, the Supreme Court held in Smith v. City of Jackson that the ADEA

20 permits disparate impact claims in addition to disparate treatment claims. 544 U.S. 228, 240

21 (2005) (“[The ADEA] authorize[s] recovery on a disparate-impact theory[.]”). Neither the

22 Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has explicitly held, however, that this right extends to both

23 employees and job applicants under the ADEA. Based on the language of the ADEA, existing

24 precedent, agency interpretations of the ADEA, and the Act’s legislative history, the Court today

25 concludes that job applicants like Plaintiffs may bring disparate impact claims.

26

A. Text of the ADEA

27

Section 4 of the ADEA makes it unlawful for an employer:

28 2

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 3 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in any way which would deprive or

1

tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise

2

adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s age . . . .

3 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(2). In Smith, the Supreme Court held unequivocally that section 4(a)(2)

4 allows for disparate impact claims. 544 U.S. at 240. The only question here is whether that right

5 extends to job applicants in addition to employees.

6

The plain language of the statute supports the more inclusive interpretation. Critically, the

7 ADEA uses the phase “any individual,” rather than “employee” to identify those people section

8 4(a)(2) protects. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(2). By contrast, elsewhere in the same provision, Congress

9 chose the word “employees” to refer to the people an employer may not “limit, segregate, or

10 classify.” Id. The Court assumes that this variation in language was a deliberate choice, and one

11 that reflects Congress’s intent to include all “individuals” within section 4(a)(2)’s ambit. S.E.C. v.

12 McCarthy, 322 F.3d 650, 656 (9th Cir. 2003) (“It is a well-established canon of statutory

13 interpretation that the use of different words or terms within a statute demonstrates that Congress

14 intended to convey a different meaning for those words.”). This reading of section 4(a)(2) is

15 bolstered further by the fact that, elsewhere in the ADEA, Congress used the phrase “any

16 employee” to refer to the affected parties with a right to sue. See, e.g., 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(3)

17 (making it unlawful “to reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this

18 chapter”) (emphasis added). “If Congress intended to protect a narrower group, [such as

19 employees only], it would have said so.” Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958,

20 982 (11th Cir. 2016) (Martin, J., dissenting).

21

The Court acknowledges that the Eleventh Circuit came to the opposite conclusion in

22 Villarreal. Indeed, Defendant leans heavily on the majority opinion in that case for its argument

23 that the plain language of section 4(a)(2) clearly limits its application to employees. The Court in

24 Villarreal focused on the phrase “or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee,” and

25 argued that its use made “‘depriving or tending to deprive any individual of employment

26 opportunities’ a subset of ‘adversely affecting [the individual’s status as an employee.’”

27 Villarreal, 839 F.3d at 963. Under this reading, section 4(a)(2) gives only employees, and not

28 applicants, the right to bring disparate impact claims. Defendant further explains how, in other

3

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 4 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 parts of the U.S. Code, similar “otherwise” phrases have been interpreted to “operate[] as a

2 catchall: the specific items that precede it are meant to be subsumed by what comes after the ‘or

3 otherwise.’” ECF No. 64 at 8. But the power of this argument and Defendants’ statutory

4 examples is undermined by the fact that the Supreme Court has interpreted identical statutory

5 language in Title VII, and did not suggest that only employees were entitled to bring suit or that

6 the “otherwise” phrase modifies “any individual.” See Part III.B (discussing Griggs v. Duke

7 Power Co.).

8

Moreover, as Judge Martin noted in her dissent, “the Supreme Court has even told us that

9 when the word employee lacks any temporal qualifier it can include people other than current

10 employees,” such as “prospective employees.” Id. at 984 (Martin, J., dissenting) (citing Robinson 11 v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 342 (1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted).1 “If ‘employees

12 can mean prospective employees, surely ‘any individual’ can too.” Id. The text of the statute

13 therefore contradicts the Villarreal majority’s conclusion that “4(a)(2) protects an individual only

14 if he has a ‘status as an employee.’” Id. at 963.

15

Defendant and the Villarreal majority also focus on section 4(c)(2) of the ADEA, which

16 uses the words “status as an employee or as an applicant for employment” rather than “status as an

17 employee” like section 4(a)(2). According to Defendant, Congress’s decision to omit the

18 “applicant for employment” language in section 4(a)(2) must mean something. This is

19 Defendant’s strongest textual argument. Nonetheless, Section 4(c)(2) is distinguishable, because

20 it governs labor organizations, not employers. The Villarreal dissent explained the ramifications

21 of this distinction:

22

[Section 4(c)(2)] governs a labor organization’s ability to “refuse to refer for

23

employment.” This part of the statute targets the unique way in which labor

organizations can discriminate when they “refer” “applicants” to employers, such

24

as through union hiring halls. None of the other parts of the ADEA that govern

employers say anything about “referring” anyone for employment. Employers,

25

after all, don’t “refer applicants.” But labor organizations, by virtue of their

unique referral role, are sometimes the sole conduit by which an employer can get 26

27 1 Defendant misunderstands Plaintiffs and the Court’s use of Robinson. ECF No. 64 at 13. That

28

decision supports a broader interpretation of the word “employee”; the Court does not rely on Robinson to interpret the word “individual.”

4

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 5 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

potential job applicants. And § 4(c)(2) prohibits labor organizations from

1

“refus[ing] to refer” a person for employment at all because of her age and

2

thereby denying her “status . . . as an applicant for employment.” In other words,

the statute protects someone who sought work but was denied status as an

3

applicant—that is, being allowed to apply at all—due to labor organizations’

control of the hiring process.

4 839 F.3d at 985 (Martin, J., dissenting). The Court finds this analysis persuasive. And

5 Defendant’s statutory comparison, however convincing, cannot overcome the use of the phrase

6 “any individual,” binding Supreme Court precedent, see Part III.B, or the legislative history of the

7 Act, see Part III.C.

8 Finally, the most natural reading of section 4(a)(2) “plainly describes what [PwC

9 allegedly] did to [Plaintiffs]. Specifically, Mr. [Rabin] is an ‘individual’ who was ‘deprive[d]’ ‘of

10 employment opportunities’ and denied any ‘status as an employee’ because of something an

11 employer did to ‘limit . . . his employees.’” Id. at 982 (Martin, J., dissenting). Given that it is

12 PwC’s alleged discrimination that deprived Mr. Rabin of his status an employee, it would turn the

13 ADEA on its head to say that Mr. Rabin cannot bring a disparate impact claim because he was

14 never actually hired.

15 B. Supreme Court Precedent

16 Supreme Court precedent supports an interpretation of section 4(a)(2) that permits job-

17 seekers to bring disparate impact claims. Most importantly, in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., the

18 Supreme Court considered identical statutory language in Title VII. 401 U.S. 424 (1971).2 The

19 question before the Court was whether, under that identical statute, “an employer is prohibited by

20 the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, from requiring a high school education or passing of a

21 standardized general intelligence test as a condition of employment in or transfer to jobs.” Id. at

22 425-26 (emphasis added). The Court held that Title VII prohibited the employer’s actions if they

23 were shown to have a disparate impact on African Americans. Id.

24 Defendant argues that Griggs has no bearing on whether job applicants, versus employees,

25 may bring disparate impact claims, because in Griggs the plaintiffs were all “employed at the

26

27

28

2 Of course, the statutes differ in that protected status under Title VII is “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” whereas under the ADEA it is “age.”

5

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 6 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 Company’s Dan River Steam Station.” Id. at 426. But as described above, the Court phrased the

2 question presented broadly to include a challenge to “condition[s] of employment.” Id.

3 Moreover, the Griggs Court explained the decision below as finding that the defendant had

4 “openly discriminated on the basis of race in the hiring and assigning of employees at its Dan

5 River plant.” Id. at 426-27 (emphasis added). This suggests that the Court did not intend to limit

6 Title VII’s protections in a way that excluded job applicants. That more liberal reading of Griggs

7 makes sense given the Court’s approval of disparate impact liability as a tool to combat “subtle

8 forms of discrimination that ‘freeze the status quo,’ create ‘artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary

9 barriers to employment,’ or ‘operate as built-in-headwinds for minority groups.’” Villarreal, 839

10 F.3d at 987 (Martin, J., dissenting) (quoting Griggs, 401 U.S. at 430-32). Those same “subtle

11 forms of discrimination” are just as likely to persist in the interview room as they are within the

12 walls of the workplace. It cannot be that, despite Griggs’s clear message, an employer remains

13 free to freeze the status quo “by not hiring minorities at all.” Id.

14

Notably, several subsequent Supreme Court decisions have characterized Griggs as

15 applying to job applicants. In Texas Dep’t of Hous. & Cmty. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities

16 Project, Inc., for example, the Court described how Griggs had placed important limits on Title

17 VII disparate impact liability, explaining that even “in a disparate-impact case, § 703(a)(2) does

18 not prohibit hiring criteria with a ‘manifest relationship’ to job performance.” 135 S. Ct. 2507,

19 2517 (2015). Likewise, in Connecticut v. Teal, the Court explained that although the requirements

20 in Griggs “applied equally to white and black employees and applicants, they barred employment

21 opportunities to a disproportionate number of blacks” and were therefore invalid. 457 U.S. 440,

22 446 (1982) (emphasis added); see also Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 329 (1977)

23 (explaining that Griggs “ma[de] clear that to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a

24 plaintiff need only show that the facially neutral standards in question select applicants for hire in

25 a significantly discriminatory pattern”). That the Court described its own prior decision in these

26 terms casts doubt on Defendant’s cramped reading of Griggs.

27

Defendant makes much of the fact that Congress later amended the section of Title VII at

28 issue in Griggs to read: 6

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 7 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any

2

way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment

opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of

3

such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

4 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2) (emphasis on new language). Defendant suggests that the decision to

5 add the phrase “or applicants for employment” means Congress believed that group was not

6 protected under the earlier version – i.e., the version interpreted in Griggs. ECF No. 55 at 10.

7 Because Congress did not add a similar phrase to the ADEA, the argument goes, job applicants 8 remain unprotected under section 4(a)(2).3 Defendant draws the wrong inference. As Plaintiffs

9 point out, the amendment to Title VII was intended to be “declaratory of present law,” S. Rep. No.

10 92-415 at 43 (1971), and “fully in accord with the decision of the Court” in Griggs, H.R. Rep. No.

11 92-238 at 21-22 (1971). In other words, the amendment signaled that Griggs had properly

12 interpreted Title VII as protecting both employees and applicants. Therefore, the amendment

13 supports, rather than detracts from, an interpretation of the ADEA as likewise covering both

14 employees and applicants.

15

Smith, which announced that disparate impact claims are cognizable under section 4(a)(2)

16 of the ADEA, made no distinction between applicants and employees. 544 U.S. 228 (2005).4 It is

17 true that the plaintiffs in Smith were employees. Id. at 230 (describing plaintiffs as “police and

18 public safety officers employed by the city of Jackson”). But just because Smith granted relief to

19 employees, it does not follow that the Court would not have granted relief had the plaintiffs been

20 applicants instead. Moreover, the Smith Court relied heavily on the reasoning in Griggs, which, as

21 described above, did not limit its holding to employees. Id. at 232 (“[We] now hold that the

22 ADEA does authorize recovery in ‘disparate-impact’ cases comparable to Griggs.”).

23

24

3 Defendant cites Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009), in support of this point. But there, the Court emphasized that “Congress neglected to add such a provision to the ADEA when

25

it amended Title VII . . . , even though it contemporaneously amended the ADEA in several ways.” Id. at 175 (emphasis added). Defendant makes no claim here that Congress specifically

26

considered adding “or applicants for employment” to the ADEA at the time it amended Title VII and decided against it.

27 4 When Smith was decided, the amendment to Title VII that added the “or applicants for 28 employment” language had been in place for over three decades.

7

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 8 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Smith did identify “[t]wo textual differences between the ADEA and Title VII [that] make

2 it clear that even though both statutes authorize recovery on a disparate-impact theory, the scope

3 of disparate-impact liability under ADEA is narrower than under Title VII.” Smith, 544 U.S. at 4 240. Neither, however, has the slightest connection to the applicant/employee distinction.5 That

5 the Court chose to comment on the differences between Title VII and the ADEA’s analogous

6 provisions but made no mention of the “or applicants for employment” language in Title VII is

7 noteworthy.

8

The Smith Court also carefully analyzed the textual differences between section 4(a)(2)

9 and section (4)(a)(1). The latter makes it unlawful to “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any

10 individual or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation,

11 terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. §

12 623(a)(1). Although subsection one contains the “fail or refuse to hire” language, and subsection

13 two does not, the Smith Court “said nothing about the distinction between hiring versus other

14 claims that [Defendant’s] entire effort to distinguish Smith is staked on.” Villarreal, 839 F.3d at

15 988 (Martin, J., dissenting).

16

Rather than invent a new and more restrictive interpretation of section 4(a)(2), this Court

17 will follow the guidance of Smith and Griggs.6 Those precedents support extending the right to

18 make a disparate impact claim under the ADEA to “any individual” who has been adversely

19 affected “because of such individual’s age,” regardless of whether she is an applicant or employee.

20

C. Agency Interpretation

21

22

23

5 First, ADEA defendants may use the “reasonable factors other than age” defense; and second, Wards Cove’s pre-1991 interpretation of Title VII’s identical language remains applicable to the

24 ADEA. ECF No. 62 at 16-17.

25

6 Defendant claims that, by adopting this approach, the Court will be “break[ing] with th[e] significant weight of precedent,” pointing to Villarreal, but also to Ellis v. United Airlines, Inc., 73

26

F.3d 999, 1009 (10th Cir. 1996) and E.E.O.C. v. Francis W. Parker Sch., 41 F.3d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir. 1994). ECF No. 64 at 12. This reliance is misplaced. Both the Tenth and Seventh Circuits

27

held that disparate claims were not available at all under the ADEA. The Supreme Court overruled that holding in Smith. The fact that Ellis and Francis W. Parker School involved claims by job

28

applicants does not change the fact that their central holdings are no longer good law and cannot support Defendant’s argument here.

8

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 9 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

Deference to agency interpretation provides yet another reason to reject Defendant’s

2 narrow construction of section 4(a)(2). To be clear, the Court believes the language of the statute,

3 read in light of Griggs and Smith, makes plain that the ADEA permits job applicants to bring

4 disparate impact claims. Nonetheless, the Court acknowledges that others might would interpret

5 section 4(a)(2) differently, including a majority of judges on the Villarreal en banc panel. Where a

6 statute is ambiguous, courts grant increased deference to the responsible agency’s interpretation.

7 Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984).

8

Here, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the agency with

9 authority to issue rules and regulations related to the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 628, has long interpreted

10 the ADEA as permitting disparate impact claims by job-seekers. The EEOC’s current regulation

11 explains that “[a]ny employment practice that adversely affects individuals within the protected

12 age group on the basis of older age is discriminatory unless the practice is justified by a

13 “reasonable factor other than age.” 29 C.F.R. § 1625.7(c). The regulation mirrors section

14 4(a)(2)’s broad “any individual” language. Additionally, the regulation’s preamble section

15 explains how it addresses “neutral practices that act as barriers to the employment of older

16 workers”:

17

Data show that older individuals who become unemployed have more difficulty

18

finding a new position and tend to stay unemployed longer than younger

individuals. To the extent that the difficulty in finding new work is attributable to

19

neutral practices that act as barriers to the employment of older workers, the

regulation should help to reduce the rate of their unemployment. 20
77 Fed. Reg. 19080, 19092 (2012) (footnote omitted). This endorsement of applicant disparate

21 impact claims is not new. Only months after the ADEA was signed into law, the Department of

22 Labor, then the agency in charge of its interpretation, declared that supposedly neutral “pre-

23 employment” tests must be “reasonably necessary for the specific work to be performed” and

24 “equally applied to all applicants.” 33 Fed. Reg. 9173 (1968). Defendant offers no persuasive

25 reason to discard this decades-old interpretation of the ADEA by its implementing agency.

26 D. Legislative History

27

28 9

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 74 Filed 02/17/17 Page 10 of 10

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

The history of the ADEA’s enactment reveals that Congress was concerned not just with

2 age discrimination within the workplace, but also with the barriers to older workers finding

3 employment in the first place. In the Act’s statement of purpose, Congress described how “older

4 workers find themselves disadvantaged in their efforts . . . to regain employment when displaced

5 from jobs,” and struggle with “high” unemployment, “especially long-term unemployment with

6 resultant deterioration of skill, morale, and employer acceptability.” 29 U.S.C. § 621(a)(1), (a)(3).

7 Plaintiffs amply demonstrate that congressional supporters of the ADEA spoke out often and

8 openly about the need to address age discrimination in hiring. ECF No. 62 at 24-26. As the chief

9 sponsor of the ADEA in the Senate, Ralph Yarborough, stated succinctly, “[i]n simple terms, this

10 bill prohibits discrimination in hiring and firing.” 113 Cong. Rec. 31248, 31252 (1967). This and

11 many other references to protecting older job applicants negate any impression that Congress

12 viewed discrimination in hiring as less important than discrimination against those already

13 employed. While statements by particular lawmakers are not “controlling,” as Defendant rightly

14 states, it is wrong to say they have “no probative value.” ECF No. 64 at 20.

15

CONCLUSION

16

Together, a textual analysis of section 4(a)(2), the Supreme Court’s precedent in Griggs

17 and Smith, the EEOC’s interpretation of the ADEA, and the Act’s legislative history, all confirm

18 that job applicants like Plaintiffs may bring disparate impact claims. Defendant’s motion for

19 judgment on the pleadings is denied.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21 Dated: February 17, 2017

22

______________________________________

23

JON S. TIGAR

24

United States District Judge

25

26

27

28 10

 
 Create an Alert for This Case on RECAP

ADRMOP,CLOSED,PROTO,REFDIS

U.S. District Court California Northern District (Oakland) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:16-cv-02276-JST

Rabin et al v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Assigned to: Judge Jon S. Tigar Referred to: Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim Cause: 29:621 Job Discrimination (Age)
Plaintiff Steve Rabin

Date Filed: 04/27/2016 Date Terminated: 02/08/2021 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Jahan C. Sagafi Outten & Golden LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 638-8800 Fax: (415) 638-8810 Email: jsagafi@outtengolden.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam T. Klein Outten & Golden LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 212-245-1000 Fax: 646-509-2060 Email: atk@outtengolden.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Cristina Schrum-Herrera Outten & Golden LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-638-8800 Fax: 415-638-8810 Email: Cschrumherrera@outtengolden.com TERMINATED: 08/27/2018

Daniel Benjamin Kohrman AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E Street, NW, Room A4-240 Washington, DC 20049

202-434-2064 Fax: 202-434-2082 Email: dkohrman@aarp.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stromberg Outten Golden LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 200W Washington, DC 20001 202-847-4400 Fax: 646-509-2060 Email: dstromberg@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dara Swartz Smith AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20049 202-434-6280 Fax: 202-434-2082 Email: dsmith@aarp.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Lin Liu The Liu Law Firm, P.C. 800 Menlo Ave Ste 102 Menlo Park, CA 94025 650-461-9000 Fax: 650-460-6967 Email: jliu@liulawpc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Rabinovich Outten & Golden LLP One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-638-8800 Fax: 415-638-8810 Email: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com TERMINATED: 01/19/2017
Katrina Leigh Eiland ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project 39 Drumm Street

Plaintiff
John Chapman on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated

San Francisco, CA 94111 (415) 343-0770 Fax: (415) 395-0950 Email: keiland@aclu.org TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Laura Iris Mattes Outten & Golden LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 415-638-8800 Fax: 415-638-8810 Email: imattes@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie A McCann AARP Foundation Litigation 601 E. Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20049 202-434-2060 Fax: 202-434-2082 Email: lmccann@aarp.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucy Brierly Bansal Outten & Golden LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Second Floor West Suite Washington, DC 20001 202-847-4400 Email: lbansal@outtengolden.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Lardo Stewart Outten and Golden LLP 685 3rd Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 245-1000 Fax: (646) 509-2060 Email: mstewart@outtengolden.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jahan C. Sagafi (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Adam T. Klein (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Cristina Schrum-Herrera (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/27/2018
Daniel Benjamin Kohrman (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel Stromberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Dara Swartz Smith (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer Lin Liu (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Julia Rabinovich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/19/2017
Katrina Leigh Eiland (See above for address) TERMINATED: 02/23/2017
Laura Iris Mattes (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurie A McCann (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lucy Brierly Bansal (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE

V. Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Melissa Lardo Stewart (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Emily Nicklin Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 N. LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 862-2400 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Email: enicklin@kirkland.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Lynn Briesacher Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 N. LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 862-2400 Fax: (312) 862-2200 Email: christina.briesacher@kirkland.com TERMINATED: 03/05/2021 PRO HAC VICE
Gabor Balassa Kirkland Ellis LLP 300 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 312-862-2000 Email: gabor.balassa@kirkland.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joshua Zev Rabinovitz Kirkland & Ellis LLP 300 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 862-2284 Email: joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark William Premo-Hopkins Kirkland Ellis LLP 300 N LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654 312-862-2000 Fax: 312-862-2200 Email: mark.premohopkins@kirkland.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michael Phillip Esser Kirkland and Ellis LLP Commerical Litigation 555 California Street, Suite 2700 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 439-1973 Fax: (415) 439-1500 Email: michael.esser@kirkland.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/27/2016
04/27/2016 04/27/2016

# Docket Text
1 CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT for Violations of ADEA and State Laws; Demand for Jury Trial against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, (Filing Fee: $400.00, receipt number 0971-10403542). Filed by Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Civil Cover Sheet)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/27/2016)...Modified on 4/28/2016 (tnS). (Entered: 04/27/2016)
2 Proposed Summons. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/27/2016) (Entered: 04/27/2016)
3 Case assigned to Hon. Jon S. Tigar.

Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.

Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (sv, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2016) (Entered: 04/27/2016)

04/28/2016

4 Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Joint Case Management Statement due by 7/20/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 7/27/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San

04/28/2016 05/03/2016 05/03/2016 05/04/2016 05/04/2016 05/05/2016 05/10/2016
05/10/2016 05/11/2016 05/20/2016 05/20/2016 05/20/2016 05/20/2016

Francisco. (tnS) (Filed on 4/28/2016) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
5 Summons Issued as to Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (tnS) (Filed on 4/28/2016) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
6 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice for Daniel B. Kohrman, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971-10420369.) filed by Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Good Standing) (Kohrman, Daniel) (Filed on 5/3/2016) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
7 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice for Laurie McCann, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971-10420910.) filed by Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Certificate/Proof of Service Certificate of Good Standing) (McCann, Laurie) (Filed on 5/3/2016) (Entered: 05/03/2016)
8 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY DANIEL B. KOHRMAN PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 6 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2016) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
9 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY LAURIE A. MCCANN PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 7 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/4/2016) (Entered: 05/04/2016)
10 First MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice for Dara S. Smith, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971-10426965) filed by Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service Cert of Good Standing)(Smith, Dara) (Filed on 5/5/2016) (Entered: 05/05/2016)
11 Second Application for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice for Dara S. Smith, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971-10426965) - Filing Fee Previously Paid on 5/5/2016 - [Correction to docket no. 10] filed by Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Certificate/Proof of Service Cert of Good Standing)(Smith, Dara) (Filed on 5/10/2016).. Modified on 5/10/2016 (tnS). (Entered: 05/10/2016)
12 AFFIDAVIT of Service , filed by Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/10/2016) (Entered: 05/10/2016)
13 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY DARA S. SMITH PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 11 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/11/2016) (Entered: 05/11/2016)
14 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael Phillip Esser (Esser, Michael) (Filed on 5/20/2016) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
15 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPs Certification of Interested Entities or Persons Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15 filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Esser, Michael) (Filed on 5/20/2016) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
16 PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPs Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Esser, Michael) (Filed on 5/20/2016) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
17 Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP to Respond to

05/23/2016 05/23/2016 05/24/2016 05/24/2016 06/28/2016 06/28/2016 06/30/2016
06/30/2016
07/05/2016
07/13/2016 07/13/2016 07/13/2016 07/19/2016
07/20/2016

Complaint filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Esser, Michael) (Filed on 5/20/2016) (Entered: 05/20/2016)
18 Certification of Interested Entities or Persons Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15 filed by Steve Rabin (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/23/2016) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
19 NOTICE filed by Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/23/2016) (Entered: 05/23/2016)
20 NOTICE by Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/24/2016) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
21 NOTICE by Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/24/2016) (Entered: 05/24/2016)
22 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971-10565361) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 6/28/2016) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
23 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971-10565403) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Briesacher, Christina) (Filed on 6/28/2016) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
24 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulated Request for Order Changing Time filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Micahel P. Esser, # 2 Proposed Order)(Esser, Michael) (Filed on 6/30/2016) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
25 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATIONS TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 22 Motion for Pro Hac Vice; granting 23 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2016) (Entered: 06/30/2016)
26 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 24 Joint Stipulated Request for Order Changing Time filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Case Management Statement due by 7/27/2016. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/3/2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 5, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/5/2016) (Entered: 07/06/2016)
27 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 7/13/2016) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
28 NOTICE of need for ADR Phone Conference (ADR L.R. 3-5 d) (Joint Notice) (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 7/13/2016) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
29 ADR Certification (ADR L.R. 3-5 b) of discussion of ADR options (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 7/13/2016) (Entered: 07/13/2016)
30 ADR Clerk's Notice Setting ADR Phone Conference on Monday, July 25, 2016, at 1:30 PM Pacific time. Please note that you must be logged into an ECF account of counsel of record in order to view this document. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2016) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
31 ADR Remark: The ADR Phone Conference that was scheduled on 7/25/2016, has been RESCHEDULED TO 7/28/2016, at 9:30 AM Pacific time. The call-in

07/22/2016 07/27/2016 07/28/2016 08/01/2016 08/03/2016
08/03/2016
08/04/2016 08/08/2016 09/02/2016 09/07/2016 09/08/2016

information remains the same. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2016) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
32 ANSWER & AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to Steve Rabin's Complaint for Violations of ADEA and State Laws filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 7/22/2016) (Entered: 07/22/2016)
33 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND RULE 26(f) REPORT filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 7/27/2016) (Entered: 07/27/2016)
34 ADR Remark: ADR Phone Conference held by Howard Herman on 7/28/2016. (af, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2016) (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
35 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971-10651918) filed by Steve Rabin. (Klein, Adam) (Filed on 8/1/2016) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
36 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Initial Case Management Conference held on 8/3/2016. Joint Agenda due by 9/20/2016 by 5:00 PM. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2016 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Total Time in Court: 39 minutes. Court Reporter: Not Reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/3/2016) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
37 SCHEDULING ORDER. Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the ADEA collective class 1/26/2017. Deadline to add parties or amend the pleadings by 6/16/2017. Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 certification of state law classes 8/17/2017. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 3, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2016) (Entered: 08/03/2016)
38 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $305.00, receipt number 0971-10663922) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 8/4/2016) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
39 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATIONS TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 38 Motion for Pro Hac Vice; granting 35 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2016) (Entered: 08/08/2016)
40 JOINT STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/2/2016) (Entered: 09/02/2016)
41 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 40 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed by Steve Rabin. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on September 7, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2016) (Entered: 09/08/2016)
42 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT for Violations of ADEA and State Laws; Demand for Jury Trial against PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Filed by Steve Rabin & John Chapman. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/8/2016) (Entered:

09/12/2016 09/21/2016
09/22/2016
09/22/2016 09/30/2016 10/05/2016 10/11/2016 10/26/2016 10/28/2016 11/03/2016 11/07/2016 11/18/2016

09/08/2016)
43 NOTICE of Change of Address by Adam T. Klein (Klein, Adam) (Filed on 9/12/2016) (Entered: 09/12/2016)
44 CLERK'S NOTICE ADVANCING TIME OF TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. With the consent of the parties, the Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 9/22/2016 will begin at at 9:00 AM. The Court will contact the parties using the conference call number previously provided. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/21/2016) (Entered: 09/21/2016)
45 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 9/22/2016. Further Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 11/18/2016 at 1:30 PM. Total Time in Court: 18 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/22/2016) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
46 Joint Stipulation to Extend Time for Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP to Respond to First Amended Complaint re 42 First Amended Complaint filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Briesacher, Christina) (Filed on 9/22/2016) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
47 ANSWER to First Amended Complaint and Affirmative Defenses filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 9/30/2016) (Entered: 09/30/2016)
48 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Concerning Production of Electronically Stored Information filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 10/5/2016) (Entered: 10/05/2016)
49 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 48 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Concerning Production of Electronically Stored Information filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 11, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2016) (Entered: 10/11/2016)
50 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/26/2016) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
51 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/28/2016) (Entered: 10/28/2016)
52 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER re Stipulated Proposed Protective Order filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 11/3/2016) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
53 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 52 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER re Stipulated Proposed Protective Order filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on November 7, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/7/2016) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
54 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Further Case

12/01/2016
12/07/2016 12/07/2016
12/07/2016 12/16/2016 01/05/2017 01/09/2017 01/09/2017 01/13/2017 01/19/2017

Management Conference held on 11/18/2016. Total Time in Court: 30 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/18/2016) (Entered: 11/18/2016)
55 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings and Memorandum in Support filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Motion Hearing set for 1/5/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/15/2016. Replies due by 12/22/2016. (Attachments: #(1) [Proposed] Order) (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 12/1/2016) (Entered: 12/01/2016)
56 JOINT STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Amend the Briefing Schedule on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Vacate the Deadline on Plaintiffs' Conditional Certification Motion filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/7/2016) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
57 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 56 JOINT STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Amend the Briefing Schedule on Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Vacate the Deadline on Plaintiffs' Conditional Certification Motion filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 7, 2016. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2016) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 55 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings. Responses due by 1/13/2017. Replies due by 1/26/2017. Motion Hearing set for 2/9/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/7/2016) (Entered: 12/07/2016)
58 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to the Joint Discovery Letter Brief, # 2 Exhibit B to the Joint Discovery Letter Brief, # 3 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of Plaintiffs' Position in the Parties' Joint Discovery Letter Brief)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/16/2016) (Entered: 12/16/2016)
59 DISCOVERY ORDER re 58 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on January 5, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2017) (Entered: 01/05/2017)
60 MOTION & [PROPOSED] ORDER for leave to appear in Pro Hac Vice ( Filing fee $ 310, receipt number 0971-11059723.) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Premo-Hopkins, Mark) (Filed on 1/9/2017) Modified on 1/10/2017 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/09/2017)
61 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY MARK PREMO-HOPKINS PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 60 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2017) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
62 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 55 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings ) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/13/2017) (Entered: 01/13/2017)
63 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Jahan C. Sagafi (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/19/2017) (Entered: 01/19/2017)

01/26/2017 02/02/2017 02/02/2017 02/07/2017 02/09/2017 02/09/2017
02/10/2017 02/13/2017
02/16/2017 02/17/2017

64 REPLY (re 55 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 1/26/2017) (Entered: 01/26/2017)
65 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $310.00, receipt number 0971-11123811) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing)(Rabinovitz, Joshua) (Filed on 2/2/2017) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
66 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY JOSHUA Z. RABINOVITZ PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 65 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2017) (Entered: 02/02/2017)
67 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jennifer Lin Liu (Liu, Jennifer) (Filed on 2/7/2017) (Entered: 02/07/2017)
68 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Motion Hearing held on 2/9/2017 re 55 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Total Time in Court: 1 hour, 37 minutes. Court Reporter: Lydia Zinn. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/9/2017) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
69 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. A Telephonic Case Management Conference is set for 2/16/2017 at 2:30 PM. A Joint Agenda including a conference call number for the Court to use is due by 2/14/2017 at 5:00 PM. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/9/2017) (Entered: 02/09/2017)
70 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 2/9/2017 before Hon. Jon S. Tigar by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, for Court Reporter Lydia Zinn. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 2/10/2017) (Entered: 02/10/2017)
71 Transcript of Proceedings held on 2/9/2017, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lydia Zinn, telephone number (415) 531-6587. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 70 Transcript Order ) Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/16/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/15/2017. (Related documents(s) 70 ) (Zinn, Lydia) (Filed on 2/13/2017) (Entered: 02/13/2017)
72 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Further Case Management Conference held on 2/16/2017. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 3/10/2017 at 2:00 PM. Total Time in Court: 1 hour, 16 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/16/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
73 ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Case Management Statement due by 3/8/2017. Telephonic Case Management

02/17/2017 02/17/2017 02/21/2017 02/23/2017 03/02/2017 03/03/2017 03/03/2017 03/06/2017 03/07/2017 03/07/2017 03/08/2017 03/08/2017

Conference set for 3/10/2017 at 2:00 PM. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 17, 2017. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
74 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS by Judge Jon S. Tigar; denying 55 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
75 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Process for Production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) re 72 Case Management Conference filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)
76 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 75 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Process for Production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 21, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2017) (Entered: 02/22/2017)
77 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Katrina Leigh Eiland (Eiland, Katrina) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)
78 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Joint Letter Brief on Data Discovery re 72 Case Management Conference filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/2/2017) (Entered: 03/02/2017)
79 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $310.00, receipt number 0971-11203010) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Stromberg, Daniel) (Filed on 3/3/2017) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
80 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration 2017.03.03 Declaration of J. Sagafi, # 2 Declaration 2017.03.02 Declaration of S. Rabin)(Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 3/3/2017) (Entered: 03/03/2017)
81 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY DANIEL STROMBERG PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 79 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2017) (Entered: 03/06/2017)
82 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $310.00, receipt number 0971-11212067) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 3/7/2017) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
83 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 78 Stipulation and [Proposed] Order re Joint Letter Brief on Data Discovery filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 7, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2017) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
84 NOTICE OF MOTION & MOTION for Certification UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) AND NOTICE OF MOTION filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 3/8/2017) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 84 MOTION for Certification UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) AND NOTICE OF MOTION. Responses due by 3/22/2017. Replies due

03/08/2017 03/08/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017
03/10/2017 03/22/2017 03/22/2017 03/22/2017
03/28/2017

by 3/29/2017. Motion Hearing set for 4/13/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2017) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
85 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY MELISSA L. STEWART PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 82 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2017) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
86 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/8/2017) (Entered: 03/08/2017)
87 DISCOVERY ORDER re 80 Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 10, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2017) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
88 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Further Case Management Conference held on 3/10/2017. Case Management Statement due by 4/18/2017. Further Case Management Conference set for 4/20/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Total Time in Court: 8 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 3/10/2017) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 84 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) AND NOTICE OF MOTION. Motion Hearing set for 4/20/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/10/2017) (Entered: 03/10/2017)
89 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 84 MOTION for Certificate of Appealability UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) AND NOTICE OF MOTION); -Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's Motion for Certification Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/22/2017) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
90 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of re 89 Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's Motion for Certification Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit 1, #(2) Exhibit 2, #(3) Exhibit 3, #(4) Exhibit 4) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/22/2017) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
91 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's Motion for Certification Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A - Redacted Version of Plaintiffs' Opposition Brief, # 4 Exhibit B - Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs' Opposition Brief, # 5 Exhibit C - Unredacted Version of Exhibit 1, # 6 Exhibit D - Unredacted Version of Exhibit 2, # 7 Exhibit E - Unredacted Version of Exhibit 3, # 8 Exhibit F - Redacted Version of Exhibit 4, # 9 Exhibit G - Unredacted Version of Exhibit 4, # 10 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/22/2017) (Entered: 03/22/2017)
92 JOINT STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to extend time to file Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion for Leave to File

Under Seal filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Premo-Hopkins, Mark) (Filed on 3/28/2017) (Entered: 03/28/2017)

03/29/2017 93 REPLY (re 84 MOTION for Certification UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) AND NOTICE OF MOTION) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 3/29/2017) (Entered: 03/29/2017)

03/29/2017

94 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 92 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to extend time to file Declaration in Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 29, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/29/2017) (Entered: 03/29/2017)

04/03/2017

95 Declaration of Sheri Ann Bartlome re Documents Filed Under Seal attached to Docket Entry #91 re 94 Stipulation and Order filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Related document(s) 94 ) (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 4/3/2017) (Entered: 04/03/2017)

04/04/2017

96 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiffs' Request for Data filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 1, # 2 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 4/4/2017) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/04/2017

97 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to the Parties Joint Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. No. 96) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Sheri Ann Bartlome in Support of Motion to Seal, # 2 Proposed Order on Motion to Seal, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version of Joint Letter Brief, # 4 Exhibit Sealed Version of Joint Letter Brief, # 5 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 1 to Joint Letter Brief, # 6 Exhibit Sealed Version of Exhibit 1 to Joint Letter Brief, # 7 Exhibit Filed Version of Exhibit 2 to Joint Letter Brief, # 8 Exhibit Sealed Version of Exhibit 2 to Joint Letter Brief, # 9 Exhibit Filed Version of Exhibit 3 to Joint Letter Brief, # 10 Exhibit Sealed Version of Exhibit 3 to Joint Letter Brief, # 11 Exhibit Filed Version of Exhibit 4 to Joint Letter Brief, # 12 Exhibit Sealed Version of Exhibit 4 to Joint Letter Brief)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 4/4/2017) (Entered: 04/04/2017)

04/05/2017 98 ORDER GRANTING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 91 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2017) (Entered: 04/05/2017)

04/07/2017

99 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 97 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to the Parties Joint Discovery Letter Brief (Dkt. No. 96)) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/7/2017) (Entered: 04/07/2017)

04/11/2017 100 ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting in part and denying in part 97 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/11/2017) (Entered: 04/11/2017)

04/12/2017 101 ORDER VACATING HEARING re 84 MOTION for Certification UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) AND NOTICE OF MOTION filed by

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 12, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/12/2017) (Entered: 04/12/2017)
04/13/2017 102 CLERK'S NOTICE REGARDING 4/20/2017 CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The Further Case Management Conference set for 4/20/2017 at 2:00 PM before Judge Tigar will be conducted telephonically and at the conclusion of the Court's regular law and motion calendar. Not less than 24 before the hearing the parties shall provide one number for the Court to use to contact all the parties. Please email the information to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at: jstcrd@cand.uscourts.gov. As there will be in-person hearings in cases unrelated to this matter, there may be some delay before the Court can join the call. The Joint Case Management Statement remains due by 4/18/2017. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2017). (Entered: 04/13/2017)
04/17/2017 103 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar; denying 84 MOTION for Certification UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). If no party files a motion to keep all or part of the underlying order under seal within 10 days of the filing date, the Court will unseal the order.(wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2017) (wsnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/18/2017)
04/18/2017 104 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/18/2017) (Entered: 04/18/2017)
04/19/2017 105 DISCOVERY ORDER re 96 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiffs' Request for Data filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 19, 2017. If no party files a motion to keep all or part of the underlying order under seal within 10 days of the filing date, the Court will unseal the order. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2017) (wsnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 04/19/2017)
04/20/2017 106 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 4/20/2017. Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 6/16/2017 at 1:30 PM. Motion Hearing set for 12/14/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Total Time in Court 22 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 4/20/2017) (Entered: 04/20/2017)
04/28/2017 107 Joint Notice re Status of Negotiations for Production of Electronically Stored Information (ESI) re 176 Stipulation and Order filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 4/28/2017) (Entered: 04/28/2017)
05/02/2017 108 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/2/2017) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/02/2017 109 NOTICE filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP re 107 JOINT NOTICE RE STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS FOR PRODUCTION OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION (ESI) (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 5/2/2017) (Entered: 05/02/2017)
05/12/2017 110 JOINT STIPULATION & (PROPOSED) ORDER RE AGE PROXY AND COMPARATORS filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed

on 5/12/2017) (Entered: 05/12/2017)
05/16/2017 111 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 110 JOINT STIPULATION & (PROPOSED) ORDER RE AGE PROXY AND COMPARATORS filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on May 16, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2017) (Entered: 05/16/2017)
05/26/2017 112 Letter Brief re 111 Joint Stipulation and Order filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21)(Related document(s) 111 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/26/2017) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
05/26/2017 113 Unopposed Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to the Parties Joint Letter Brief [Dkt 112] filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of R. Adams in Support of Motion to Seal, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1 - Redacted Version of Joint Letter Brief, # 4 Exhibit 2 - Sealed Version of Joint Letter Brief, # 5 Exhibit 3 - Redacted Version of Exhibit 9, # 6 Exhibit 4 - Sealed Version of Exhibit 9)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 5/26/2017) (Entered: 05/26/2017)
05/31/2017 114 MOTION for Leave to Appear in Pro Hac Vice, (Filing Fee: $310.00, receipt number 0971-11434176) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Bansal, Lucy) (Filed on 5/31/2017) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
05/31/2017 115 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY LUCY B. BANSAL PRO HAC VICE by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 114 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/31/2017) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
06/01/2017 116 ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 113 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/1/2017) (Entered: 06/01/2017)
06/06/2017 117 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING HEARING. The Court will conduct a hearing on the parties' 112 Letter Brief on 6/20/2017 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. The Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 6/16/2017 is vacated. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/6/2017) (Entered: 06/06/2017)
06/13/2017 118 NOTICE filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/13/2017) (Entered: 06/13/2017)
06/14/2017 119 Joint Discovery Letter Brief (to supplement 96 ), per 100 , with newly public exhibits filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit 2, #(2) Exhibit 3, #(3) Exhibit 4)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/14/2017) (Entered: 06/14/2017)
06/15/2017 120 CLERK'S NOTICE UPDATING LOCATION OF HEARING. The hearing on the 112 Letter Brief set for 6/20/2017 at 8:30 AM will be held in Courtroom 10, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated

by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/15/2017) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
06/19/2017 121 EXHIBITS to re 112 Letter Brief - CORRECTION OF DOCKET #112-9 filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Related document(s) 112 ) (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 6/19/2017) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
06/19/2017 122 EXHIBITS re 113 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal -Materials Related to the Parties Joint Letter Brief [Dkt 112] - CORRECTION OF DOCKET #113-6 filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Related document(s) 113 ) (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 6/19/2017) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
06/19/2017 123 EXHIBITS re 113 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal - Materials Related to the Parties Joint Letter Brief [Dkt 112] - CORRECTION OF DOCKET #113-5 filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Related document(s) 113 ) (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 6/19/2017) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
06/19/2017 124 Letter from Plaintiffs' Counsel Regarding Telephonic Appearance. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/19/2017) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
06/19/2017 125 ORDER re 124 Letter filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 6/19/2017. (tnS) (Filed on 6/19/2017) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
06/19/2017 126 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/19/2017) (Entered: 06/19/2017)
06/20/2017 127 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Discovery Hearing held on 6/20/2017. Total Time in Court: 1 hour, 20 minutes. Court Reporter: Kathleen Sullivan. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/20/2017) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
06/20/2017 128 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on June 20, 2017 before Hon. Jon S. Tigar by John Chapman, Steve Rabin, for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/20/2017) (Entered: 06/20/2017)
06/26/2017 129 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 6/20/2017 before Hon. Jon S. Tigar by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 6/26/2017) (Entered: 06/26/2017)
06/29/2017 130 DISCOVERY ORDER re 112 Letter Brief, filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 29, 2017. If no party files a motion to keep all or part of the underlying order under seal within 10 days of the filing date, the Court will unseal the order. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/29/2017) (wsnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 06/29/2017)
06/30/2017 131 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The Court will conduct a Telephonic Case Management Conference on 7/13/2017 at 1:00 PM. A Joint Case Management Statement is due by 7/10/2017. Not less than 24 hours prior to the hearing, email a conference call number to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk at jstcrd@cand.uscourts.gov. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/30/2017) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
06/30/2017 132 Transcript of Proceedings held on 6/20/17, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court

Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan, telephone number 415-794-6659. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 128 Transcript Order, 129 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 7/21/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/31/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/28/2017. (Related documents(s) 128 , 129 ) (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 6/30/2017) (Entered: 06/30/2017)
07/10/2017 133 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 7/10/2017) (Entered: 07/10/2017)
07/13/2017 134 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 7/13/2017. Total Time in Court: 44 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 7/13/2017) (Entered: 07/13/2017)
07/14/2017 135 Discovery Order Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 7/14/2017. (tnS) (Filed on 7/14/2017) (Entered: 07/14/2017)
07/20/2017 136 SCHEDULING ORDER. Further Case Management Conference set for 8/3/2017 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. Jon S. Tigar. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 20, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2017) (Entered: 07/21/2017)
07/24/2017 137 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER re Joint Letter Brief on ESI Search Process filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 7/24/2017) (Entered: 07/24/2017)
07/24/2017 138 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 137 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER re Joint Letter Brief on ESI Search Process filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 24, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/24/2017) (Entered: 07/25/2017)
07/27/2017 139 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Extend Time to File Joint Letter Brief on ESI filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 7/27/2017) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
07/27/2017 140 NOTICE filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 7/27/2017) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
07/28/2017 141 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 139 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Extend Time to File Joint Letter Brief on ESI filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on July 28, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2017) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
08/01/2017 142 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re ESI Document Review Process filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Exhibit 1 Declaration of Charles Roberts, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Declaration Exhibit 6 - Declaration of

Bruce Hedin, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit 9) (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 8/1/2017) (Entered: 08/01/2017)
08/02/2017 143 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/2/2017) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
08/02/2017 144 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Supplemental Material for Case Management Conference (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 12)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/2/2017) (Entered: 08/02/2017)
08/03/2017 145 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Hon. Jon S. Tigar: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 8/3/2017. Total Time in Court: 44 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 8/3/2017) (Entered: 08/03/2017)
08/04/2017 146 [Proposed] Order Regarding Production of Dates of Birth for Successful Applicants for Cross-Check Purposes filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/4/2017) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
08/04/2017 147 [Proposed] Order Regarding Authorization to Handle Data for Limited Purpose filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/4/2017) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
08/04/2017 148 [Proposed] Order Regarding Production of Dates of Birth for Successful Applicants for Cross-Check Purposes filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 8/4/2017) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
08/04/2017 149 [CORRECTED] [Proposed] Order Regarding Vendor Confidentiality filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 8/4/2017) (Entered: 08/04/2017)
08/08/2017 150 ORDER REGARDING VENDOR CONFIDENTIALITY re 149 Proposed Order filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 8, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/8/2017: # 1 Attestation, # 2 Exhibit A) (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/08/2017)
08/08/2017 151 ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF DATES OF BIRTH FOR SUCCESSFUL APPLICANTS FOR CROSSCHECK PURPOSES re 146 Proposed Order filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 8, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
08/08/2017 152 DISCOVERY ORDER re 142 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re ESI Document Review Process. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 8, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2017) (Entered: 08/08/2017)
08/09/2017 153 CLERK'S NOTICE SETTING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. A Telephonic Case Management Conference is set for 9/15/2017 at 2:00 PM. An updated Joint Case Management Statement, not to exceed ten pages, is due by 9/11/2017. Not less than 24 hours prior to the conference, please

email to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk (jstcrd@cand.uscourts.gov) a conference call number for the Court to use. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/9/2017) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/09/2017 154 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/9/2017) (Entered: 08/09/2017)

08/10/2017 155 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. The Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 9/15/2017 is continued to 9/20/2017 at 10:00 AM. An updated Joint Case Management Statement, not to exceed ten pages, is due by 9/14/2017. Not less than 24 hours prior to the conference, please email to the Courtroom Deputy Clerk (jstcrd@cand.uscourts.gov) a conference call number for the Court to use. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2017) (Entered: 08/10/2017)

08/31/2017 156 Joint Letter Brief re Two Discovery Disputes filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit 1, #(2) Exhibit 2, #(3) Exhibit 3, #(4) Exhibit 4) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/31/2017) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

08/31/2017 157 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to the Parties' Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi, # 2 Proposed Order Proposed Order on Motion to Seal, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version of Join Letter Brief, # 4 Exhibit Sealed Version of Joint Letter Brief, # 5 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 1 of Joint Letter Brief, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 1 of Joint Letter Brief, # 7 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 2 of Joint Letter Brief, # 8 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 2 of Joint Letter Brief, # 9 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 3 of Joint Letter Brief, # 10 Exhibit Unedacted Version of Exhibit 3 of Joint Letter Brief)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/31/2017) (Entered: 08/31/2017)

09/02/2017 158 Declaration of Roderick Adams in Support of 157 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to the Parties' Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed byPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Related document(s) 157 ) (Briesacher, Christina) (Filed on 9/2/2017) (Entered: 09/02/2017)

09/05/2017 159 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 157 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to the Parties' Joint Discovery Letter Brief) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/5/2017) (Entered: 09/05/2017)

09/06/2017 160 ORDER REFERRING ALL DISCOVERY DISPUTES TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on 9/6/2017. (tnS) (Filed on 9/6/2017) (Entered: 09/06/2017)

09/07/2017

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore for Discovery (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/7/2017) (Entered: 09/07/2017)

09/08/2017 161 ORDER REGARDING JOINT LETTER BRIEF AND MOTON TO FILE UNDER SEAL. Discovery Hearing set for 9/18/2017 02:30 PM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. Signed by

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 9/8/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/8/2017) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
09/11/2017 162 CLERK'S NOTICE : At the request of counsel, the Discovery Hearing on 9/18/2017 is reset for 11:30 AM in Courtroom A, 15th Floor, San Francisco before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2017) (Entered: 09/11/2017)
09/13/2017 163 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING TELEPHONIC CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. At the joint request of the parties, the telephonic case management conference set for 9/20/2017 is vacated. A Further Telephonic Case Management Conference is set for 11/17/2017 at 2:00 PM. An updated Joint Case Management Statement is due 11/13/2017 by 5:00 PM. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
09/13/2017 164 NOTICE of Supplemental Material in Response to Order Regarding Joint Letter Brief re 161 Order filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/13/2017) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
09/15/2017 165 NOTICE of Appearance by Cristina Schrum-Herrera (Schrum-Herrera, Cristina) (Filed on 9/15/2017) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
09/18/2017 166 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim: Motion Hearing Re: 156 Joint Letter Brief held on 9/18/2017. The Court will issue a brief order. (FTR Time: 11:35-12:05.)
Attorney for Plaintiffs: Jahan Sagafi; Maria Henk Briesacher. Attorney for Defendant: Emily Nicklin; Christina Henk Briesacher; Gabor Balassa.
This is a text-only Minute Entry (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 9/18/2017) Modified on 9/19/2017: Matter transcribed by Tara Bauer (ECHO Reporting). (rjdS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/18/2017)
09/18/2017 167 ORDER re 156 Discovery Letter Brief filed. The 157 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to the Parties' Joint Discovery Letter Brief is granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim on 9/18/2017. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/18/2017) (Entered: 09/18/2017)
09/19/2017 168 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 09-18-2017 before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim by John Chapman, Steve Rabin, for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/19/2017) (Entered: 09/19/2017)
09/20/2017 169 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 9/18/2017 before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, for Court Reporter FTR - San Francisco. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
09/20/2017 170 Transcript of Proceedings of the official sound recording held on 09/18/17, before Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. FTR/Transcriber Echo Reporting, Inc., telephone number 8584537590. Tape Number: FTR 11:35 - 12:05. Per General Order No. 59

and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 168 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 10/11/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 10/23/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 12/19/2017. (Related documents(s) 168 ) (tgb, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2017) (Entered: 09/20/2017)
11/08/2017 171 Attestation and Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Plaintiffs' Responses to PwC's Fourth Interrogatories filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 - PwC's Fourth Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit 2 - J. Chapman's Responses to Fourth Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit 3 - S. Rabin's Responses to Fourth Interrogatories)(Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 11/8/2017) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
11/08/2017 172 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Joint Discovery Letter Brief filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of J. Farmer, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Joint Letter, # 4 Unredacted Joint Letter)(Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 11/8/2017) (Entered: 11/08/2017)
11/09/2017 173 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/9/2017) (Entered: 11/09/2017)
11/13/2017 174 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 172 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Joint Discovery Letter Brief) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A, #(2) Exhibit B)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/13/2017) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
11/13/2017 175 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 11/13/2017) (Entered: 11/13/2017)
11/15/2017 176 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim Re: 171 Discovery Letter Brief. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2017) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
11/15/2017 177 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim denying 172 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/15/2017) (Entered: 11/15/2017)
11/17/2017 178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Further Case Management Conference held on 11/17/2017. Case Management Statement due by 2/22/2018. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/1/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. Total Time in Court: 15 minutes. Court Reporter: Not reported. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/17/2017) (Entered: 11/17/2017)
11/22/2017 179 ATTESTATION AND JOINT LETTER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTE RELATED TO PLAINTIFFS RESPONSES TO PWCS FOURTH INTERROGATORIES re: Dkt. 177 re Dkt 172 filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 11/22/2017) (Entered: 11/22/2017)
11/27/2017 180 NOTICE filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join

(Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/27/2017) (Entered: 11/27/2017)
11/28/2017 181 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/28/2017) (Entered: 11/28/2017)
11/30/2017 182 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/30/2017) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
12/01/2017 183 [Proposed] Order re Sealing Procedure for Conditional Certification Briefing filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 12/1/2017) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
12/01/2017 184 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/1/2017) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
12/04/2017 185 ORDER RE SEALING PROCEDURE FOR CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 4, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2017) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
12/05/2017 186 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/5/2017) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
12/07/2017 187 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/7/2017) (Entered: 12/07/2017)
12/08/2017 188 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/8/2017) (Entered: 12/08/2017)
12/12/2017 189 DOCUMENT REMOVED PER 195 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT. Modified on 12/18/2017 (wsn, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/12/2017)
12/12/2017 190 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/12/2017) (Entered: 12/12/2017)
12/13/2017 191 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit a)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/13/2017) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
12/13/2017 192 NOTICE of Appearance by Laura Iris Mattes (Mattes, Laura) (Filed on 12/13/2017) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
12/13/2017 193 MOTION to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document ECF No. 189 filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa L. Stewart in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Administrative Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document, # 2 Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Administrative Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document)(Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 12/13/2017) (Entered: 12/13/2017)
12/15/2017 194 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER to Extend Deadlines Set Forth in Order re Sealing Procedure for Conditional Certification Briefing (ECF No. 185) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 12/15/2017) (Entered: 12/15/2017)

12/18/2017 195 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO REMOVE INCORRECTLY FILED DOCUMENT by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 193 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2017) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
12/18/2017 196 Joint Statement to the Court re 185 Order filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Briesacher, Christina) (Filed on 12/18/2017) (Entered: 12/18/2017)
12/18/2017 197 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 194 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER to Extend Deadlines Set Forth in Order re Sealing Procedure for Conditional Certification Briefing (ECF No. 185) filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on December 18, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2017) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
12/21/2017 198 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 1/18/2018. Replies due by 2/12/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 1-6, # 4 Exhibit 7-58, # 5 Exhibit 59-90, # 6 Exhibit 91-107, # 7 Exhibit 108-120, # 8 Exhibit 121-149, # 9 Appendix of Exhibits)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/21/2017) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
12/21/2017 199 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class [ECF No. 198] filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Motion to Certify Class, # 4 Unredacted Version of Motion to Certify Class, # 5 Redacted Version of Exhibit 6, # 6 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 6, # 7 Redacted Version of Exhibit 7, # 8 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 7, # 9 Redacted Version of Exhibit 9, # 10 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 9, # 11 Redacted Version of Exhibit 10, # 12 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 10)(Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 12/21/2017) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
12/21/2017 200 EXHIBITS re 199 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class [ECF No. 198] filed byPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Exhibit 11, # 2 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 11, # 3 Redacted Version of Exhibit 12, # 4 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 12, # 5 Redacted Version of Exhibit 13, # 6 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 13, # 7 Redacted Version of Exhibit 14, # 8 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 14, # 9 Redacted Version of Exhibit 15, # 10 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 15, # 11 Redacted Version of Exhibit 23, # 12 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 23, # 13 Redacted Version of Exhibit 24, # 14 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 25, # 15 Redacted Version of Exhibit 26, # 16 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 26, # 17 Redacted Version of Exhibit 27, # 18 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 27, # 19 Redacted Version of Exhibit 29, # 20 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 29)(Related document(s) 199 ) (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 12/21/2017) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
12/21/2017 201 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to Plaintiffs' Motion

for Conditional Collective Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa L. Stewart, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Redacted - A1, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted - A2, # 5 Exhibit Redacted - B1, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted - B2, # 7 Exhibit Redacted - C1, # 8 Exhibit Unredacted C2, # 9 Exhibit Redacted - D1, # 10 Exhibit Unredacted - D2, # 11 Exhibit Redacted - E1, # 12 Exhibit Unredacted - E2)(Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 12/21/2017) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
12/21/2017 202 EXHIBITS re 199 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class [ECF No. 198] filed byPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Exhibit 30, # 2 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 30, # 3 Redacted Version of Exhibit 31, # 4 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 31, # 5 Redacted Version of Exhibit 33, # 6 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 33, # 7 Redacted Version of Exhibit 35, # 8 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 35, # 9 Redacted Version of Exhibit 36, # 10 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 36, # 11 Redacted Version of Exhibit 37, # 12 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 37, # 13 Redacted Version of Exhibit 38, # 14 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 38, # 15 Redacted Version of Exhibit 39, # 16 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 39, # 17 Redacted Version of Exhibit 40, # 18 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 40, # 19 Redacted Version of Exhibit 41, # 20 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 41, # 21 Redacted Version of Exhibit 42, # 22 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 42, # 23 Redacted Version of Exhibit 43, # 24 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 43, # 25 Redacted Version of Exhibit 44, # 26 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 44, # 27 Redacted Version of Exhibit 45, # 28 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 45, # 29 Redacted Version of Exhibit 46, # 30 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 46, # 31 Redacted Version of Exhibit 47, # 32 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 47, # 33 Redacted Version of Exhibit 48, # 34 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 48, # 35 Redacted Version of Exhibit 49, # 36 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 49, # 37 Redacted Version of Exhibit 50, # 38 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 50, # 39 Redacted Version of Exhibit 52, # 40 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 52, # 41 Redacted Version of Exhibit 53, # 42 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 53, # 43 Redacted Version of Exhibit 54, # 44 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 54, # 45 Redacted Version of Exhibit 55, # 46 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 55, # 47 Redacted Version of Exhibit 56, # 48 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 56, # 49 Redacted Version of Exhibit 57, # 50 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 57)(Related document(s) 199 ) (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 12/21/2017) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
12/21/2017 203 EXHIBITS re 199 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class [ECF No. 198] filed byPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Exhibit 58, # 2 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 58, # 3 Redacted Version of Exhibit 59, # 4 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 59, # 5 Redacted Version of Exhibit 60, # 6 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 60, # 7 Redacted Version of Exhibit 61, # 8 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 61, # 9 Redacted Version of Exhibit 62, # 10 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 62, # 11 Redacted Version of Exhibit 63, # 12 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 63, # 13 Redacted Version of Exhibit 64, # 14 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 64, # 15 Redacted Version of Exhibit 65, # 16

Unredacted Version of Exhibit 65, # 17 Redacted Version of Exhibit 66, # 18 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 66, # 19 Redacted Version of Exhibit 67, # 20 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 67, # 21 Redacted Version of Exhibit 68, # 22 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 68, # 23 Redacted Version of Exhibit 69, # 24 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 69, # 25 Redacted Version of Exhibit 70, # 26 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 70, # 27 Redacted Version of Exhibit 71, # 28 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 71, # 29 Redacted Version of Exhibit 72, # 30 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 72, # 31 Redacted Version of Exhibit 73, # 32 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 73, # 33 Redacted Version of Exhibit 74, # 34 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 74, # 35 Redacted Version of Exhibit 75, # 36 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 75, # 37 Redacted Version of Exhibit 76, # 38 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 76, # 39 Redacted Version of Exhibit 77, # 40 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 77, # 41 Redacted Version of Exhibit 78, # 42 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 78, # 43 Redacted Version of Exhibit 79, # 44 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 79)(Related document(s) 199 ) (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 12/21/2017) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
12/21/2017 204 EXHIBITS re 199 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class [ECF No. 198] filed byPricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Redacted Version of Exhibit 80, # 2 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 80, # 3 Redacted Version of Exhibit 81, # 4 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 81, # 5 Redacted Version of Exhibit 82, # 6 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 82, # 7 Redacted Version of Exhibit 83, # 8 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 83, # 9 Redacted Version of Exhibit 84, # 10 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 84, # 11 Redacted Version of Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 85, # 12 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 85, # 13 Redacted Version of Exhibit 86, # 14 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 86, # 15 Redacted Version of Exhibit 87, # 16 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 87, # 17 Redacted Version of Exhibit 88, # 18 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 88, # 19 Redacted Version of Exhibit 89, # 20 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 89, # 21 Redacted Version of Exhibit 90, # 22 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 90)(Related document(s) 199 ) (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 12/21/2017) (Entered: 12/21/2017)
12/21/2017 205 EXHIBITS re 201 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to Plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Certification and Issuance of CourtAuthorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed byJohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted - F1, # 2 Exhibit Unredacted - F2, # 3 Exhibit Redacted - G1, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted - G2, # 5 Exhibit Redacted - H1, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted - H2, # 7 Exhibit Redacted - I1, # 8 Exhibit Unredacted - I2, # 9 Exhibit Redacted - J1, # 10 Exhibit Unredacted - J2, # 11 Exhibit Redacted K1, # 12 Exhibit Unredacted - K2, # 13 Exhibit Redacted - L1, # 14 Exhibit Unredacted - L2, # 15 Exhibit Redacted - M1, # 16 Exhibit Unredacted - M2, # 17 Exhibit Redacted - N1, # 18 Exhibit Unredacted - N2, # 19 Exhibit Redacted - O1, # 20 Exhibit Unredacted - O2, # 21 Exhibit Redacted - P1, # 22 Exhibit Unredacted - P2, # 23 Exhibit Redacted - Q1, # 24 Exhibit Unredacted - Q2, # 25 Exhibit Redacted - R1, # 26 Exhibit Unredacted R2, # 27 Exhibit Redacted - S1, # 28 Exhibit Unredacted - S2, # 29 Exhibit Redacted - T1, # 30 Exhibit Unredacted - T2, # 31 Exhibit Redacted - U1, # 32 Exhibit Unredacted - U2, # 33 Exhibit Redacted - V1, # 34 Exhibit Unredacted - V2, # 35 Exhibit Redacted - W1, # 36

Exhibit Unredacted - W2, # 37 Exhibit Redacted - X1, # 38 Exhibit Unredacted X2, # 39 Exhibit Redacted - Y1, # 40 Exhibit Unredacted - Y2, # 41 Exhibit Redacted - Z1, # 42 Exhibit Unredacted Z2, # 43 Exhibit Redacted AA1, # 44 Exhibit Unredacted AA2)(Related document(s) 201 ) (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 12/21/2017) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

12/22/2017

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 198 MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Motion Hearing set for 3/1/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Correcting year of hearing. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/22/2017) (Entered: 12/22/2017)

12/28/2017 206 Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Defendants Subpoena for Deposition of David Neumark filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/28/2017) (Entered: 12/28/2017)

01/03/2018 207 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim Re: 206 Discovery Letter Brief. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/3/2018) (Entered: 01/03/2018)

01/05/2018 208 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 199 Administrative Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Materials related to Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class [ECF No. 198]) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/5/2018) (Entered: 01/05/2018)

01/09/2018 209 CLERK'S NOTICE CONTINUING HEARINGS. Due to a change in the Court's availability, the following hearings currently set for 3/1/2018 are continued to 3/15/2018: 198 MOTION to Certify Class Hearing set for 3/15/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Case Management Statement due by 3/5/2018. Further Case Management Conference set for 3/15/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2018) (Entered: 01/09/2018)

01/18/2018 210 CLERK'S NOTICE ADVANCING HEARINGS. At the joint request of the parties, the deadlines and hearings in this case are advanced as follows: Hearing on the 198 MOTION to Certify Class set for 2/27/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Further Case Management Conference set for 2/27/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco. An updated Case Management Statement is due by 2/20/2018. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2018) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/18/2018

Set/Reset Deadlines as to 198 Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Motion Hearing set for 2/27/2018 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom 9, 19th Floor, San Francisco before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/18/2018) (Entered: 01/18/2018)

01/29/2018 211 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 198 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of E. Nicklin, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4

Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 1/29/2018) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
01/29/2018 212 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to ECF No. 211, Defendant's Response in Opposition filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of J. Farmer, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Response Brief, # 4 Unredacted Version of Response Brief, # 5 Redacted Version of Exhibit A, # 6 Unredacted Version of Exhibit A, # 7 Redacted Version of Exhibit B, # 8 Unredacted Version of Exhibit B, # 9 Redacted Version of Exhibit C, # 10 Unredacted Version of Exhibit C, # 11 Redacted Version of Exhibit D, # 12 Unredacted Version of Exhibit D, # 13 Redacted Version of Exhibit E, # 14 Unredacted Version of Exhibit E)(Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 1/29/2018) (Entered: 01/29/2018)
02/02/2018 213 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 212 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to ECF No. 211, Defendant's Response in Opposition) filed byJ ohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/2/2018) (Entered: 02/02/2018)
02/09/2018 214 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Adjust Date for Pleadings Amendment Deadline filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. Responses due by 2/13/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa L. Stewart in Support of Plaintiffs' Administrative Motion to Adjust Pleadings Amendment Deadline, # 2 Proposed Order)(Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 2/9/2018) (Entered: 02/09/2018)
02/13/2018 215 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 214 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Adjust Date for Pleadings Amendment Deadline) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 2/13/2018) (Entered: 02/13/2018)
02/15/2018 216 ORDER REGARDING PLEADINGS DEADLINE re 214 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION to Adjust Date for Pleadings Amendment Deadline filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 15, 2018. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/15/2018) (Entered: 02/15/2018)
02/20/2018 217 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT /i> filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/20/2018)Modified on 2/21/2018 (tnS, ). (Entered: 02/20/2018)
02/22/2018 218 REPLY (re 198 Plaintiffs Notice of Motion and Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa L. Stewart in Support of Plaintiffs' Reply, # 2 Exhibit 150, # 3 Exhibit 151, # 4 Exhibit 152, # 5 Exhibit 153, # 6 Exhibit 154, # 7 Exhibit 155, # 8 Exhibit 156, # 9 Exhibit 157, # 10 Exhibit 158, # 11 Exhibit 159, # 12 Exhibit 160, # 13 Exhibit 161, # 14 Exhibit 162, # 15 Exhibit 163, # 16 Exhibit 164, # 17 Exhibit 165, # 18 Exhibit 166, # 19 Exhibit 167, # 20 Exhibit 168, # 21 Exhibit 169, # 22 Exhibit 170, # 23 Exhibit 171, # 24 Exhibit 172, # 25 Exhibit 173, # 26 Exhibit 174, # 27 Exhibit 175, # 28 Exhibit 176)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/22/2018) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/22/2018 219 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to Plaintiffs' Reply in

Support of Motion for Conditional Certification [ECF No. 218] filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of A. Merschel in Support of Motion, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Stewart Declaration, # 4 Unredacted Stewart Declaration, # 5 Exhibit 153 - Redacted, # 6 Exhibit 153 Unredacted, # 7 Exhibit 154 - Redacted, # 8 Exhibit 154 - Unredacted, # 9 Exhibit 155 - Redacted, # 10 Exhibit 155 - Unredacted, # 11 Exhibit 156 - Redacted, # 12 Exhibit 156 - Unredacted, # 13 Exhibit 157 - Redacted, # 14 Exhibit 157 Unredacted, # 15 Exhibit 158 - Redacted, # 16 Exhibit 158 - Unredacted, # 17 Exhibit 161 - Redacted, # 18 Exhibit 161 - Unredacted, # 19 Exhibit 162 Redacted, # 20 Exhibit 162 - Unredacted, # 21 Exhibit 163 - Redacted, # 22 Exhibit 163 - Unredacted, # 23 Exhibit 164 - Redacted, # 24 Exhibit 164 Unredacted, # 25 Exhibit 165 - Redacted, # 26 Exhibit 165 - Unredacted, # 27 Exhibit 166 - Redacted, # 28 Exhibit 166 - Unredacted, # 29 Exhibit 167 Redacted, # 30 Exhibit 167 - Unredacted, # 31 Exhibit 168 - Redacted, # 32 Exhibit 168 - Unredacted, # 33 Exhibit 169 - Redacted, # 34 Exhibit 169 Unredacted, # 35 Exhibit 170 - Redacted, # 36 Exhibit 170 - Unredacted, # 37 Exhibit 171 - Redacted, # 38 Exhibit 171 - Unredacted, # 39 Exhibit 172 Redacted, # 40 Exhibit 172 - Unredacted, # 41 Exhibit 173 - Redacted, # 42 Exhibit 173 - Unredacted, # 43 Exhibit 174 - Redacted, # 44 Exhibit 174 Unredacted, # 45 Exhibit 175 - Redacted, # 46 Exhibit 175 - Unredacted, # 47 Exhibit 176 - Redacted, # 48 Exhibit 176 - Unredacted)(Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 2/22/2018) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
02/23/2018 220 OBJECTIONS to re 218 Reply to Opposition/Response Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-3 filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: #(1) Declaration of M. Premo-Hopkins)(Premo-Hopkins, Mark) (Filed on 2/23/2018) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
02/26/2018 221 Letter from Defendant re Telephonic Access to Hearing. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 2/26/2018) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
02/26/2018 222 ORDER RE REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC APPEARANCE Defendant has filed a letter asking the Court to permit members of its legal team and others to listen to tomorrow's hearing by telephone. The letter does not indicate that Defendant met and conferred with opposing counsel before making its request, and the letter was not filed as an administrative motion. As a result, Plaintiff's position regarding the request is unknown and there is no deadline for Plaintiff to respond. Defendant is directed to meet and confer with Plaintiff and submit a joint letter renewing its request and setting forth Plaintiff's position. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar) (Filed on 2/26/2018) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
02/26/2018 223 ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' REPLY re 220 Objection filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 26, 2018. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2018) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
02/26/2018 224 Letter from Defendant re Telephonic Access to Hearing (unopposed) . (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 2/26/2018) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
02/26/2018 225 ORDER RE REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC ACCESS

The Court has reviewed the letter submitted today by defense counsel requesting telephonic access to tomorrow's motion hearing. The Courtroom Deputy will dial in to the number provided by defense counsel prior to the commencement of the hearing. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (Entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar) (Filed on 2/26/2018) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
02/26/2018 226 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 219 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion for Conditional Certification [ECF No. 218]) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/26/2018) (Entered: 02/26/2018)
02/27/2018 227 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Motion Hearing held on 2/27/2018 re 198 MOTION to Certify Class Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion and Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman; Further Case Management Conference held on 2/27/2018. Total Time in Court: 1 hour, 45 minutes. Court Reporter: Kathy Sullivan. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/27/2018) (Entered: 02/27/2018)
03/01/2018 228 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 2/27/2018 before Judge Jon S. Tigar by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
03/01/2018 229 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on February 27, 2018 before Judge Jon S. Tigar by John Chapman, Steve Rabin, for Court Reporter Katherine Sullivan. (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 3/1/2018) (Entered: 03/01/2018)
03/06/2018 230 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/6/2018) (Entered: 03/06/2018)
03/09/2018 231 Transcript of Proceedings held on 2/27/18, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter/Transcriber Katherine Powell Sullivan, Katherine_Sullivan@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 229 Transcript Order, 228 Transcript Order ) Redaction Request due 3/30/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/9/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/7/2018. (Related documents(s) 229 , 228 ) (Sullivan, Katherine) (Filed on 3/9/2018) (Entered: 03/09/2018)
05/29/2018 232 NOTICE of Change of Address by Cristina Schrum-Herrera (Schrum-Herrera, Cristina) (Filed on 5/29/2018) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
05/29/2018 233 NOTICE of Change of Address by Jahan C. Sagafi (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/29/2018) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
05/29/2018 234 NOTICE of Change of Address by Laura Iris Mattes (Mattes, Laura) (Filed on

5/29/2018) (Entered: 05/29/2018)
07/26/2018 235 ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting in part and denying in part 199 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; 201 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; 212 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; 219 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2018) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
07/26/2018 236 ORDER DENYING COLLECTIVE CERTIFICATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar; denying 198 Motion to Certify Class. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/26/2018) (Entered: 07/26/2018)
08/02/2018 237 Supplemental Brief/Response to re 208 Opposition/Response to Motion for Conditional Certificaton, 235 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal - refiling Response and Exhibits A and C in compliance with ECF 235 filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit C) (Related document(s) 208 , 235 ) (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 8/2/2018) (Entered: 08/02/2018)
08/23/2018 238 STIPULATION WITH [PROPOSED] ORDER Regarding Sealing Procedure for Renewed Conditional Certification Briefing filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/23/2018) (Entered: 08/23/2018)
08/27/2018 239 ORDER DENYING STIPULATION REGARDING SEALING PROCEDURE FOR RENEWED CONDITIONAL CERTIFICATION BRIEFING by Judge Jon S. Tigar; denying 238 Stipulation. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
08/27/2018 240 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Jahan C. Sagafi (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
08/27/2018 241 Renewed MOTION for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. Motion Hearing set for 11/1/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 09, 19th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 9/10/2018. Replies due by 9/17/2018. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi, # 2 Exhibit 1-3, # 3 Exhibit 4-29, # 4 Exhibit 30, # 5 Exhibit 31-33, # 6 Exhibit 34-53, # 7 Exhibit 54-68, # 8 Exhibit 69-72, # 9 Exhibit 73, # 10 Exhibit 74-78, # 11 Proposed Order)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
08/27/2018 242 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa L. Stewart, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 1, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 1, # 5 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 2, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 2, # 7 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 3, # 8 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 3, # 9 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 4, # 10 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 4)(Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)

08/27/2018 243 EXHIBITS to re 242 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 5, # 2 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 5, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 6, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 6, # 5 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 7, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 7, # 7 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 8, # 8 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 10, # 13 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 11, # 14 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 11, # 15 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 12, # 16 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 12, # 17 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 13, # 18 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 13, # 19 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 14, # 20 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 14, # 21 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 15, # 22 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 15, # 23 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 16, # 24 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 16, # 25 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 17, # 26 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 17, # 27 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 18, # 28 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 18, # 29 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 19, # 30 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 19, # 31 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 20, # 32 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 20)(Related document(s) 242 ) (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
08/27/2018 244 EXHIBITS to re 242 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 21, # 2 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 21, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 22, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 22, # 5 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 23, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 23, # 7 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 24, # 8 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 24, # 9 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 25, # 10 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 25, # 11 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 26, # 12 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 26, # 13 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 27, # 14 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 27, # 15 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 28, # 16 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 28, # 17 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 29, # 18 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 29, # 19 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 30, # 20 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 30, # 21 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 31, # 22 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 31, # 23 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 32, # 24 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 32, # 25 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 33, # 26 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 33, # 27 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 34, # 28 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 34, # 29 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 35, # 30 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 35, # 31 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 36, # 32 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 36, # 33 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 37, # 34 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 37, # 35 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 38, # 36 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 38, # 37 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 39, # 38 Exhibit

Unredacted Version of Exhibit 39, # 39 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 40, # 40 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 40)(Related document(s) 242 ) (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
08/27/2018 245 EXHIBITS to re 242 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 41, # 2 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 41, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 42, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 42, # 5 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 43, # 6 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 43, # 7 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 44, # 8 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 44, # 9 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 45, # 10 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 45, # 11 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 46, # 12 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 46, # 13 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 47, # 14 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 47, # 15 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 48, # 16 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 48, # 17 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 49, # 18 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 49, # 19 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 50, # 20 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 50, # 21 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 51, # 22 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 51, # 23 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 52, # 24 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 52, # 25 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 53, # 26 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 53, # 27 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 54, # 28 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 54, # 29 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 55, # 30 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 55, # 31 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 56, # 32 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 56, # 33 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 57, # 34 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 57, # 35 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 58, # 36 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 58, # 37 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 59, # 38 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 59, # 39 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 60, # 40 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 60, # 41 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 61, # 42 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 61, # 43 Exhibit Redacted Version of Exhibit 62, # 44 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Exhibit 62)(Related document(s) 242 ) (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 8/27/2018) (Entered: 08/27/2018)
08/30/2018 246 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to ECF No. 241, Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification and ECF No. 242, Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of R. Adams in Support, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit Redacted Version of Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification, # 4 Exhibit Unredacted Version of Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification, # 5 Exhibit 31 Redacted, # 6 Exhibit 31 - Unredacted, # 7 Exhibit 35 - Redacted, # 8 Exhibit 35 Unredacted, # 9 Exhibit 36 - Redacted, # 10 Exhibit 36 - Unredacted, # 11 Exhibit 37 - Redacted, # 12 Exhibit 37 - Unredacted, # 13 Exhibit 38 - Redacted, # 14 Exhibit 38 - Unredacted, # 15 Exhibit 39 - Redacted, # 16 Exhibit 39 Unredacted)(Briesacher, Christina) (Filed on 8/30/2018) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
08/30/2018 247 EXHIBITS to re 246 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to ECF No. 241, Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification and ECF No. 242, Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

(Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 40 - Redacted, # 2 Exhibit 40 - Unredacted, # 3 Exhibit 41 - Redacted, # 4 Exhibit 41 - Unredacted, # 5 Exhibit 42 - Redacted, # 6 Exhibit 42 - Unredacted, # 7 Exhibit 43 - Redacted, # 8 Exhibit 43 - Unredacted, # 9 Exhibit 44 - Redacted, # 10 Exhibit 44 - Unredacted, # 11 Exhibit 45 - Redacted, # 12 Exhibit 45 - Unredacted, # 13 Exhibit 46 - Redacted, # 14 Exhibit 46 Unredacted, # 15 Exhibit 47 - Redacted, # 16 Exhibit 47 - Unredacted, # 17 Exhibit 48 - Redacted, # 18 Exhibit 48 - Unredacted, # 19 Exhibit 49 - Redacted, # 20 Exhibit 49 - Unredacted, # 21 Exhibit 50 - Redacted, # 22 Exhibit 50 Unredacted, # 23 Exhibit 51 - Redacted, # 24 Exhibit 51 - Unredacted, # 25 Exhibit 52 - Redacted, # 26 Exhibit 52 - Unredacted, # 27 Exhibit 53 - Redacted, # 28 Exhibit 53 - Unredacted, # 29 Exhibit 54 - Redacted, # 30 Exhibit 54 Unredacted, # 31 Exhibit 55 - Redacted, # 32 Exhibit 55 - Unredacted, # 33 Exhibit 56 - Redacted, # 34 Exhibit 56 - Unredacted, # 35 Exhibit 57 - Redacted, # 36 Exhibit 57 - Unredacted, # 37 Exhibit 58 - Redacted, # 38 Exhibit 58 Unredacted, # 39 Exhibit 59 - Redacted, # 40 Exhibit 59 - Unredacted, # 41 Exhibit 60 - Redacted, # 42 Exhibit 60 - Unredacted, # 43 Exhibit 61 - Redacted, # 44 Exhibit 61 - Unredacted, # 45 Exhibit 62 - Redacted, # 46 Exhibit 62 Unredacted, # 47 Exhibit 63 - Redacted, # 48 Exhibit 63 - Unredacted, # 49 Exhibit 64 - Redacted, # 50 Exhibit 64 - Unredacted, # 51 Exhibit 65 - Redacted, # 52 Exhibit 65 - Unredacted, # 53 Exhibit 66 - Redacted, # 54 Exhibit 66 Unredacted, # 55 Exhibit 67 - Redacted, # 56 Exhibit 67 - Unredacted, # 57 Exhibit 68 - Redacted, # 58 Exhibit 68 - Unredacted)(Related document(s) 246 ) (Briesacher, Christina) (Filed on 8/30/2018) (Entered: 08/30/2018)
09/04/2018 248 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 246 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to ECF No. 241, Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification and ECF No. 242, Administrative Motion to File Under Seal) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 9/4/2018) (Entered: 09/04/2018)
09/10/2018 249 OPPOSITION/RESPONSE to (re 241 Renewed MOTION for Conditional Certification Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)) filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 9/10/2018) (Entered: 09/10/2018)
09/17/2018 250 REPLY (re 241 Second MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) ) filed byJohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/17/2018) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
09/17/2018 251 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification and Issuance of Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 216(b) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Melissa L. Stewart, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Redacted Version of Exhibit 1, # 4 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 1, # 5 Redacted Version of Exhibit 2, # 6 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 2, # 7 Redacted Version of Exhibit 3, # 8 Unredacted Version of Exhibit 3, # 9 Redacted Version of Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification, # 10 Unredacted Version of Plaintiffs'

Reply in Support of Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification)(Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 9/17/2018) (Entered: 09/17/2018)
09/20/2018 252 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Materials Related to ECF No. 250, Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification and ECF No. 251, Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of J. Farmer, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit 2 to Reply - Redacted, # 4 Exhibit 2 to Reply - Highlighted, # 5 Exhibit 3 to Reply - Redacted, # 6 Exhibit 3 to Reply - Highlighted)(Briesacher, Christina) (Filed on 9/20/2018) (Entered: 09/20/2018)
09/24/2018 253 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION For Leave to File Surreply re 250 Reply to Opposition/Response filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Responses due by 9/28/2018. (Attachments: #(1) Surreply to Plaintiffs Reply in Support of Plaintiffs Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification, #(2) [Proposed] Order)(Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 9/24/2018) (Entered: 09/24/2018)
10/02/2018 254 ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 253 Administrative Motion For Leave to File Surreply. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2018) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
10/09/2018 255 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing as to 241 Renewed Motion to Certify Class Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). The Motion Hearing currently set for 11/1/2018 is continued to 11/29/2018 at 2:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2018) (Entered: 10/09/2018)
10/19/2018 256 Joint Stipulated Request for Order Changing Date and [Proposed] Order filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Declaration of Jahan Sagafi, #(2) [Proposed] Order)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/19/2018) (Entered: 10/19/2018)
10/23/2018 257 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing per 256 Joint Stipulated Request for Order Changing Date. At the joint request of the parties, the hearing on the 241 Second MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) is continued from 11/29/2018 to 12/20/2018 at 2:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 9, 19th Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/23/2018) (Entered: 10/23/2018)
12/11/2018 258 Attestation and Joint Discovery Letter Brief re Discovery Dispute Regarding Qualifications Data filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/11/2018) (Entered: 12/11/2018)
12/14/2018 259 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (Re: 258 Discovery Letter Brief) by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. (mklS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/14/2018) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
12/20/2018 260 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Motion Hearing held on 12/20/2018 re 241 Second MOTION to Certify Class Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Total Time in Court: 1 hour, 20 minutes. Court Reporter: Ana Dub. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 12/20/2018) (Entered: 12/20/2018)

12/21/2018 261 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on December 20, 2018 before Judge Jon S. Tigar by John Chapman, Steve Rabin, for Court Reporter Ana Dub. (Stewart, Melissa) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
12/21/2018 262 TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on December 20, 2018 before Judge Jon S. Tigar by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, for Court Reporter Ana Dub. (Nicklin, Emily) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
01/14/2019 263 Transcript of Proceedings held on December 20, 2018, before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Court Reporter Ana Dub, telephone number (415) 290-1651; Ana_Dub@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 262 Transcript Order, 261 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/15/2019. (Related documents(s) 262 , 261 ) (amdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2019) (Entered: 01/14/2019)
03/01/2019 264 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/1/2019) (Entered: 03/01/2019)
03/15/2019 265 STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: #(1) Exhibit A)(Related document(s) 241 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/15/2019) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
03/19/2019 266 ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION for Leave to File Response to Statement of Recent Decision re 265 Statement of Recent Decision filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Responses due by 3/25/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Gabor Balassa, # 2 Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit A - Response to the Statement of Recent Decision)(Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 3/19/2019) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
03/27/2019 267 ORDER by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 266 Administrative Motion for Leave to File Response to Statement of Recent Decision. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2019) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
03/27/2019 268 RESPONSE to re 265 Plaintiff's Statement of Recent Decision filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 3/27/2019) (Entered: 03/27/2019)
03/27/2019 269 ORDER REGARDING MOTIONS TO SEAL by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting in part and denying in part 242 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 246 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part 251 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 252 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2019) (Entered: 03/28/2019)
03/28/2019 270 ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR COLLECTIVE CERTIFICATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 241 Motion to Certify Class. Order filed under seal. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/28/2019) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/28/2019: #(1) Certificate/Proof of Service) (wsnS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/28/2019)

04/04/2019 271 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER re 270 Order Granting Renewed Motion for Collective to Certification filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/4/2019) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
04/04/2019 272 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXHIBIT 78 SEALING filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/4/2019) (Entered: 04/04/2019)
04/05/2019 273 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 271 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER re 270 Order Granting Renewed Motion for Collective Certification filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 5, 2019. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2019) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
04/05/2019 274 ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR COLLECTIVE CERTIFICATION by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 241 Motion to Certify Class. Order filed under seal. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 28, 2019. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/5/2019) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
04/08/2019 275 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 272 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE: EXHIBIT 78 SEALING filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 8, 2019. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/8/2019) (Entered: 04/08/2019)
04/10/2019 276 NOTICE of Completion of Filing of Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification and Reply filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin re 275 Stipulation and Order, 269 Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Conditional Certification, # 2 Exhibit 33, # 3 Exhibit 77, # 4 Exhibit 78, # 5 Plaintiffs' Reply, # 6 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/10/2019) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
04/25/2019 277 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER to Extend Deadline to File 216(b) Notice Proposal filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 4/25/2019) (Entered: 04/25/2019)
04/26/2019 278 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING ADEA COLLECTIVE NOTICE LIST GENERATION PROCESS AND NOTICE AND CONSENT TO JOIN FORMS filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Notice, # 2 Exhibit B - Consent to Join Form) (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 4/26/2019) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
04/26/2019 279 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 277 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER to Extend Deadline to File 216(b) Notice Proposal filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on April 26, 2019. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2019) (Entered: 04/26/2019)
05/03/2019 280 ORDER REGARDING JOINT STIPULATION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF ADEA COLLECTIVE NOTICE LIST GENERATION PROCESS AND NOTICE AND CONSENT TO JOIN FORMS by Judge Jon S. Tigar; denying 278 JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING ADEA COLLECTIVE NOTICE LIST GENERATION PROCESS AND NOTICE AND CONSENT TO JOIN FORMS. Amended proposal due by 5/14/2019. (wsnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2019)

(Entered: 05/03/2019)
05/14/2019 281 AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Approving ADEA Collective Notice List Generation Process and Notice and Consent to Join Forms re 280 Order on Stipulation filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 5/14/2019) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
05/15/2019 282 Order Granting 281 Amended Joint Stipulation Approving ADEA Collective Notice List Generation Process And Notice And Consent To Join Forms by Judge Jon S. Tigar; granting 281 Amended Joint Stipulation. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/15/2019) (Entered: 05/15/2019)
06/17/2019 283 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/17/2019) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
06/25/2019 284 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 6/25/2019) (Entered: 06/25/2019)
08/21/2019 285 CLERKS NOTICE REGARDING LOCATION CHANGE FOR JUDGE JON S. TIGAR
Effective August 26, 2019:
Judge Jon S. Tigar's courtroom and chambers will be located at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building and United States Courthouse, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612.
On or after the effective date, all court appearances, filings, and deliveries of chambers copies must be made at the Oakland Courthouse (https://cand.uscourts.gov/locations). For updated scheduling information, please visit https://cand.uscourts.gov/jst.
Judge Tigar's case assignments will be updated to reflect the correct office assignment (for example: 3:19-cv-00123-JST will now be 4:19-cv-00123-JST). (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (ecgS-adi, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2019) (Entered: 08/21/2019)
10/03/2019 286 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/3/2019) Modified on 10/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/03/2019 287 DECLARATION OF JAHAN C. SAGAFI IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF FILING OF CONSENT TO JOIN re 286 Notice (Other) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Related document(s) 286 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/3/2019) Modified on 10/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/03/2019 288 DECLARATION OF JAHAN C. SAGAFI IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF FILING OF CONSENT TO JOIN re 286 Notice (Other) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5, # 2 Exhibit 6, # 3 Exhibit 7, # 4 Exhibit

8)(Related document(s) 286 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/3/2019) Modified on 10/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/03/2019 289 DECLARATION OF JAHAN C. SAGAFI IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF FILING OF CONSENT TO JOIN re 286 Notice (Other) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 9, # 2 Exhibit 10, # 3 Exhibit 11, # 4 Exhibit 12)(Related document(s) 286 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/3/2019) Modified on 10/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/03/2019 290 DECLARATION OF JAHAN C. SAGAFI IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF FILING OF CONSENT TO JOIN re 286 Notice (Other) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 13, # 2 Exhibit 14, # 3 Exhibit 15, # 4 Exhibit 16)(Related document(s) 286 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/3/2019) Modified on 10/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/03/2019 291 DECLARATION OF JAHAN C. SAGAFI IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF FILING OF CONSENT TO JOIN re 286 Notice (Other) filed byJ ohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 17, # 2 Exhibit 18, # 3 Exhibit 19, # 4 Exhibit 20)(Related document(s) 286 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/3/2019) Modified on 10/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/03/2019 292 DECLARATION OF JAHAN C. SAGAFI IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE OF FILING OF CONSENT TO JOIN re 286 Notice (Other) filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 21, # 2 Exhibit 22, # 3 Exhibit 23) (Related document(s) 286 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/3/2019) Modified on 10/4/2019 (cjlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/03/2019)
10/04/2019 293 NOTICE by John Chapman, Steve Rabin of Filing Consent to Join (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/4/2019) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
10/11/2019 294 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/11/2019) Modified on 10/11/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/11/2019)
10/17/2019 295 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/17/2019) Modified on 10/17/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/17/2019)
10/18/2019 296 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/18/2019) Modified on 10/18/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/18/2019)
10/24/2019 297 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/24/2019) Modified on 10/25/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/24/2019)
10/25/2019 298 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/25/2019) Modified on 10/25/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/25/2019)
11/01/2019 299 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/1/2019) Modified on 11/1/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2019)
11/01/2019 300 NOTICEof Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments:

# 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/1/2019) Modified on 11/1/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2019)
11/08/2019 301 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/8/2019) Modified on 11/8/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/08/2019)
11/15/2019 302 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/15/2019) Modified on 11/18/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/15/2019)
11/18/2019 303 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/18/2019) Modified on 11/19/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/18/2019)
11/22/2019 304 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 11/22/2019) Modified on 11/25/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/22/2019)
12/06/2019 305 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/6/2019) Modified on 12/9/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/06/2019)
12/11/2019 306 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/11/2019) Modified on 12/11/2019 (jml, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/11/2019)
12/13/2019 307 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/13/2019) Modified on 12/13/2019 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/13/2019)
12/20/2019 308 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/20/2019) Modified on 12/23/2019 (jjbS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 12/20/2019)
01/02/2020 309 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/2/2020) Modified on 1/2/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/02/2020)
01/08/2020 310 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/8/2020) Modified on 1/8/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/08/2020)
01/17/2020 311 NOTICE of Filing Consent to Join by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/17/2020) Modified on 1/17/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/17/2020)
03/03/2020 312 Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval Order filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. Motion Hearing set for 3/11/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 3/17/2020. Replies due by 3/24/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Jahan Sagafi, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A to Dec of Sagafi, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B to Dec of Sagafi, # 4 Declaration Declaration of Daniel Kohrman, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit A to Dec of Kohrman, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit B to Dec of Kohrman)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/3/2020) Modified on 3/4/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF).

(Entered: 03/03/2020)

03/03/2020 313 Proposed Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval Order filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. Motion Hearing set for 3/11/2020 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 3/17/2020. Replies due by 3/24/2020. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 3/3/2020) Modified on 3/4/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 03/03/2020)

03/03/2020

Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. [err101] The correct event is Proposed Order. The correct event can be found at: Civil Events > Other Filings > Other Document s > Proposed Order. Corrected by Clerk's Office. No further action is necessary. Re: 313 MOTION for Settlement Proposed Order Granting Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval Order filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/3/2020) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

03/04/2020 314 CLERK'S NOTICE Continuing Motion Hearing. The motion previously noticed for 3/11/20 is CONTINUED. Set/Reset Deadlines as to 312 MOTION for Settlement. Motion Hearing set for 4/15/2020 2:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (Related documents(s) 312 ) (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.)(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2020) (Entered: 03/04/2020)

03/17/2020 315 ORDER VACATING HEARING re 312 MOTION for Settlement filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on March 17, 2020. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/17/2020) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

08/19/2020 316 ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AND REQUIRING REVISIONS TO PROPOSED NOTICES by Judge Jon S. Tigar re 312 Motion for Settlement. Revised Notices due by 8/26/2020.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/19/2020) (Entered: 08/19/2020)

08/25/2020 317 NOTICE of Revised Class Notice Per Settlement Approval Order by John Chapman, Steve Rabin (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exh A to Not of Revised Class Not Per Settlement Approval Order, # 2 Exhibit Exh B to Not of Revised Class Not Per Settlement Approval Order)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 8/25/2020) Modified on 8/26/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/25/2020)

09/30/2020 318 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SETTLEMENT IMPLEMENTATION filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 9/30/2020) Modified on 10/1/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 09/30/2020)

10/02/2020 319 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 318 Joint Stipulation Regarding Settlement Implementation. Motion Hearing set for 1/13/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/2/2020) (Entered: 10/02/2020)

10/09/2020 320 ***DISREGARD. FILED IN ERROR PER FILER. SEE DOCKET #321 FOR CORRECT FILING.***

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Joint Stipulation Regarding Settlement Implementation and [Proposed] Order filed by John Chapman, Steve

Rabin. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/9/2020) Modified on 10/9/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2020)
10/09/2020 321 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Revised Final Approval Hearing Date - CORRECTION OF DOCKET NO. 320 filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 10/9/2020) Modified on 10/9/2020 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 10/09/2020)
10/09/2020 322 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 321 Stipulation Regarding Revised Final Approval Hearing Date.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/9/2020) (Entered: 10/09/2020)
10/30/2020 323 Letter regarding opt out of settlement from Dianne M. Andrus. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2020) (Entered: 11/04/2020)
11/20/2020 324 Letter regarding objection to settlement from Gerald Feldman. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2020) (Entered: 11/25/2020)
12/04/2020 325 OBJECTIONS to Settlement filed by Karl Andrew Brown. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2020) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/08/2020 326 MOTION for Attorney Fees Costs and Service Awards filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. Motion Hearing set for 1/27/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 12/22/2020. Replies due by 12/29/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/8/2020) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/08/2020 327 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of 326 MOTION for Attorney Fees Costs and Service Awards filed byJohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Related document(s) 326 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/8/2020) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/08/2020 328 Declaration of Daniel Kohrman in Support of 326 MOTION for Attorney Fees Costs and Service Awards filed byJohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Related document(s) 326 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/8/2020) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/08/2020 329 Declaration of Stephen L. Donaldson in Support of 326 MOTION for Attorney Fees Costs and Service Awards filed byJohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 326 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/8/2020) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/08/2020 330 Declaration of Steve Rabin in Support of 326 MOTION for Attorney Fees Costs and Service Awards filed byJohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Related document(s) 326 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/8/2020) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/08/2020 331 Declaration of John Chapman in Support of 326 MOTION for Attorney Fees Costs and Service Awards filed byJohn Chapman, Steve Rabin. (Related document(s) 326 ) (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 12/8/2020) (Entered: 12/08/2020)
12/18/2020 332 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Objections to Settlement re 325 Objection filed by Karl Andrew Brown. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope)(jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2020) (Entered: 12/22/2020)

12/24/2020 333 Letter re settlement from Gerald Feldman. (jmlS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/24/2020) (Entered: 01/04/2021)
01/13/2021 334 Motion for Final Settlement Approval filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin. Motion Hearing set for 1/27/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor before Judge Jon S. Tigar. Responses due by 1/27/2021. Replies due by 2/3/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi, # 2 Exhibit A to Sagafi Declaration, # 3 Declaration of Stephen Donaldson, # 4 Exhibit A to Donaldson Declaration, # 5 Exhibit B to Donaldson Declaration, # 6 Exhibit C to Donaldson Declaration, # 7 Proposed Order)(Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 1/13/2021) Modified on 1/14/2021 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 01/13/2021)
01/21/2021 335 CLERKS NOTICE SETTING ZOOM HEARING. Motion Hearing set for 1/27/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar.
Webinar Access: All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jst
Court Appearances: Advanced notice is required of counsel or parties who wish t o be identified by the court as making an appearance or will be participating in the argument at the hearing. One list of names of all counsel appearing for all parties must be sent in one email to the CRD at JSTCRD@cand.uscourts.gov no later than January 26, 2021 by 2:00 p.m.
General Order 58. Persons granted access to court proceedings held by telephone or videoconference are reminded that photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings, including screenshots or other visual copying of a hearing, is absolutely prohibited.
Zoom Guidance and Setup: https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/zoom/.
, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 326 MO TION for Attorney Fees Costs and Service Awards, 334 MOTION for Settlement. Motion Hearing set for 1/27/2021 02:00 PM in Oakland, - Videoconference Only before Judge Jon S. Tigar. (This is a textonly entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2021) (Entered: 01/21/2021)
01/27/2021 336 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jon S. Tigar: Motion Hearing held on 1/27/2021 re 326 MOTION for Attorney Fees Costs and Service Awards filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman, 334 MOTION for Settlement filed by Steve Rabin, John Chapman. Hearing held via Zoom videoconference. Argument heard from parties. Motion taken under submission. Written order to issue.Total Time in Court: 34 minutes. Court Reporter: Pamela Hebel. Plaintiff Attorney: Jahan Sagafi, Iris Mattes, Dan Kohrman. Defendant Attorney: Christina Briesacher, Gabor Balassa, Emily Nicklin. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 1/27/2021) (Entered: 01/27/2021)

02/04/2021 338 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AND GRANTING IN PART MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, COSTS, AND SERVICE AWARDS. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on February 4, 2021. (mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/4/2021) (Entered: 02/04/2021)
02/05/2021 339 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER of Final Judgment filed by John Chapman, Steve Rabin and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (Sagafi, Jahan) (Filed on 2/5/2021) Modified on 2/8/2021 (jmlS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 02/05/2021)
02/08/2021 340 Order by Judge Jon S. Tigar granting 339 Stipulation for Entry of Final Judgment.(mllS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2021) (Entered: 02/08/2021)
03/05/2021 341 NOTICE of Change In Counsel by Gabor Balassa (Balassa, Gabor) (Filed on 3/5/2021) (Entered: 03/05/2021)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/07/2021 06:35:45

PACER Login:

CRClearinghouse:25 Client

63377:0

Code:

Yu

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

4:16-cv02276JST

Billable Pages:

30

Cost: 3.00

 
 Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 1 of 27

1

Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)

Katrina L. Eiland (Cal. Bar No. 275701)

2

Julia Rabinovich (Cal. Bar No. 290730)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

3

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111
4 Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

5

E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

E-mail: keiland@outtengolden.com

6

E-mail: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com

Daniel Kohrman (pro hac vice forthcoming) Laurie McCann (pro hac vice forthcoming) Dara Smith (pro hac vice forthcoming) AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 Facsimile: (202) 434-2082 E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org E-mail: lmccann@aarp.org E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org

7

Adam T. Klein (pro hac vice forthcoming) Jennifer L. Liu (Cal. Bar No. 279370)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
8 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C. 1170 Market Street, Suite 700

New York, New York 10016
9 Telephone: (212) 245-1000

San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-4260

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
10 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com

Facsimile: (415) 231-0011 E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com

11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class and Collective Members

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14

15

STEVE RABIN, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated,

Case No. ______________________

16

Plaintiff,

17

v.

COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ADEA AND STATE LAWS

18

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,

CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION

19

Defendant.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 2 of 27

1

Individual and Representative Plaintiff Steve Rabin (“Plaintiff” or “Rabin”), on behalf of

2 himself and all others similarly situated, alleges, upon personal knowledge as to himself and

3 upon information and belief as to other matters, as follows:

4

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

5

1. This is a class and collective action brought by applicants to Defendant

6
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
7
Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. (“ADEA”) as well as the
8

9 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12900, et seq.(“FEHA”).

10

PwC

11

2. PwC is a global accounting and auditing firm. The firm has offices in 157

12 countries and over 208,000 employees worldwide. The firm is also very profitable. For the year
13 ending June 30, 2015, PwC’s global gross revenues were $35.4 billion. 14
3. PwC classifies its accountants in the following general hierarchy: Junior
15
Associates, Associates, Experienced and/or Senior Associates, Junior Managers, Managers,
16
17 Senior Managers, Junior Directors, Directors, Senior Directors. Above those individuals are

18 Partners, Managing Partners, a Board of Partners and Principals of PwC, and a Global Board of

19 the PwC global network of affiliated entities.

20

4. PwC prides itself on attracting and retaining young workers. PwC has conducted

21
extensive research on maintaining a workforce of Millennials. In 2013, PwC commissioned the
22
largest, most comprehensive global generational study ever conducted of Millennial employees
23
24 and how to retain them. PwC generally does not hire older individuals for its Associate and

25 other entry-level positions. Rather, it generally hires younger individuals, with an emphasis on

26 hiring through on-campus hiring.

27

28

- 2 Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 3 of 27

1

Discrimination against older workers

2

5. PwC’s culture and practices have distributed the benefits of its enormous success

3
unequally—systematically favoring younger applicants at the expense of their older counterparts.
4
Individuals 40 years of age and older are rarely in an Associate position at PwC.
5

6

6. PwC maintains hiring policies and practices for giving preference to younger

7 employees that result in the disproportionate employment of younger applicants. PwC’s

8 unlawful bias against older workers manifests itself in several ways, including but not limited to:

9 (1) a near-exclusive reliance on a recruitment system for entry-level accounting positions that
10 requires applicants to be affiliated with a university, (2) a focus on attracting and retaining 11
“Millennials,” and (3) a mandatory early retirement policy that requires Partners to retire by age
12
60. As a result of this bias against older workers, older accountants who are equally or more
13
14 qualified have been systematically excluded from the career opportunities that are afforded to

15 people who work for PwC.

16

7. The underrepresentation of workers over age 40 at PwC is stark. In its 2011 U.S.

17 Corporate Responsibility Summary Report, PwC boasted that the average age of its workforce
18
was 27, and that two out of three PwC employees were in their 20s and early 30s. Of that group,
19
75% reported that PwC was their first job out of college. According to its own figures, in 2016,
20 21 almost 80% of PwC employees will be Millennials, individuals between the ages of 21 and 36.
22 Not surprisingly, the number of workers 40 years of age and older in entry-level and lower to

23 mid-level positions is stunningly low.

24

8. PwC’s demographics sharply diverge from the relevant labor pool. According to

25 the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2013 Labor Force Statistics, the
26
median age of accountants and auditors in the United States is 43.2 years old. Approximately
27

28

- 3 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 4 of 27

1 35% of accountants and auditors nationwide are Millennials. At 80% of its workforce,

2 Millennials are vastly overrepresented at PwC, and employees ages 40 and older are notably
3
underrepresented in its workforce.
4
9. According to a 2013 industry study by CareersinAudit.com, 57% of accountants
5
6 believe that ageism is prevalent in the industry. Forty-seven percent believe that accountants 40

7 years of age or older find it difficult to get promoted or to get a new job. Of the survey

8 participants ages 50 and over, 37% believe they had missed out on career opportunities because

9 of their age.

10

PwC’s recruiting and hiring

11
10. PwC has three main channels, or “tracks,” for recruiting and hiring—Campus,
12

Experienced, and Executive. PwC fills Junior Associate, Associate, and other entry-level
13

14 positions straight out of college through the Campus track. PwC recruits applicants for

15 Experienced and/or Senior Associate and Manager positions through its Experienced track.

16 Plaintiff challenges PwC’s hiring policies and practices with respect to its Campus track hiring,

17 as well as a portion of its Experienced track hiring (i.e., non-management Experienced and/or
18
Senior Associate positions). Executive track hiring is not at issue here.
19
11. PwC’s recruiting and hiring policies, patterns, and/or practices have a disparate
20 21 impact on applicants 40 years of age or older because they deter applicants 40 years of age or
22 older from applying and disfavor hiring those applicants 40 years of age or older who do apply.

23 Specifically, its Campus track recruiting results in disproportionately higher employment of

24 younger employees than their older comparators. This is because PwC generally does not post

25 job openings for Associate and other entry-level positions on its website, even though it regularly 26

27

28

- 4 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 5 of 27

1 posts job openings for “Experienced” hires on its website. The only way to apply to these

2 positions is through PwC’s Campus track recruitment tool, which requires a college affiliation.
3
12. In addition, PwC has a continuing policy, pattern, and/or practice of subjecting all
4
Associate applicants 40 years of age or older to disparate treatment. Namely, PwC intentionally
5
6 disfavors hiring people 40 years of age or older for both entry-level and Experienced-level

7 Associate positions. Upon information and belief, when applicants 40 years of age or older

8 apply for an Associate position, regardless of level, PwC intentionally screens them out and

9 denies them employment opportunities because of their age.

10

13. These policies, patterns, and/or practices are no accident. Rather, they are part

11
and parcel of PwC’s corporate culture. PwC has intentionally implemented these company-wide
12

policies and practices throughout the United States in order to maintain its youthful culture.
13

14 PwC’s policies and practices have the effect of deterring prospective applicants ages 40 and

15 older from applying and denying job opportunities to those individuals ages 40 and older who do

16 apply. PwC provides compliance consulting services and undoubtedly understands the

17 consequences of its own recruitment policies and practices.
18
14. PwC also requires Partners to retire at the age of 60. Therefore, the closer an
19
applicant is to the age of 60, the less time PwC would employ that individual as a Partner and the
20 21 less return on investment an applicant can offer PwC. Because of the organization’s mandatory
22 retirement policy, PwC’s hiring personnel are incentivized to hire applicants under 40 years of

23 age.

24

15. Older applicants denied employment at PwC continue to experience repercussions

25 stemming from PwC’s discriminatory hiring protocols throughout their careers. Because many
26
jobs in the accounting field require applicants to have previous employment at PwC, KPMG,
27

28

- 5 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 6 of 27

1 Deloitte, or Ernst & Young (collectively known as the Big 4), accountants ages 40 and older are

2 shut out of future business opportunities and professional growth as a result of PwC’s
3
discriminatory policies.
4
16. Accordingly, in addition to bringing this action on his own behalf, Plaintiff also
5
6 brings this action on behalf of a class and collective of similarly situated applicants 40 years of

7 age or older who have been (1) denied employment in Junior Associate, Associate, Experienced

8 Associate, or Senior Associate or comparable positions (the “Covered Positions”) and/or (2)

9 deterred from applying to work in the Covered Positions at PwC, in order to end PwC’s
10 discriminatory policies and/or practices and to make the class and collective whole. 11
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12
17. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the ADEA claims
13
14 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Section 7(c) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(c).

15

18. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the FEHA claims under 28 U.S.C.

16 § 1367, because they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal claims and

17 are so related to the federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy under Article
18
III of the United States Constitution.
19
19. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has
20 21 personal jurisdiction over PwC because the firm does business in California and in this District,
22 and because the acts complained of and giving rise to the claims alleged occurred in and

23 emanated from this District.

24

20. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a

25 substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District. 26

27

28

- 6 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 7 of 27

1

21. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies and complied with all

2 statutory prerequisites to his ADEA claims. Rabin filed a charge of age discrimination on or
3
about December 11, 2013 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). He
4
subsequently filed an amended charge of discrimination specifically alleging class-wide claims
5
6 on behalf of all similarly situated individuals age 40 or older denied employment by PwC on

7 August 14, 2014. Sixty days have passed since the filing of this amended charge. 29 U.S.C. §

8 626(d)(1).

9

22. Pursuant to the EEOC’s work-sharing agreement with the California Department

10 of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), his charge and amendment are considered dually
11
filed with the DFEH. By notice dated December 17, 2013, the DFEH dismissed Rabin’s case
12
and issued a Notice of Right to Sue.
13

14

23. Any and all other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been met.

15

PARTIES

16 Plaintiff Steve Rabin

17

24. Plaintiff Steve Rabin is a Certified Public Accountant, who lives in Fremont,

18
California. He graduated from the California Institute of Technology with a B.S. in

19
Mathematics. He is a citizen of the United States. He was born in 1962 and is now 53 years old.
20

21

25. In or around October 2013, at the age of 50, Rabin applied for the position of

22 Seasonal Experienced Associate with PwC. His employment application was directed to PwC’s

23 San Jose office. That same month, PwC notified him that it had rejected his application.

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 8 of 27

1 Defendant PwC

2

26. Upon information and belief, Defendant PwC is a Delaware limited partnership

3
formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with a place of business within San Francisco,
4
and County of San Francisco at Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111.
5

6

27. Upon information and belief, Defendant PwC maintains control, oversight, and

7 direction over the operation of its facilities, including its employment practices.

8

28. Defendant PwC interviewed Plaintiff for a position and rejected his application,

9 with the purpose and effect of denying him employment because of his age.

10

29. On information and belief, Defendant PwC employs over 184,000 people

11
worldwide. At the end of fiscal year 2015, PwC employed 53,656 people in its North American
12

and Caribbean region. Hundreds or thousands of potential class members have applied,
13

14 attempted to apply, or been interested in applying to the Covered Positions during the relevant

15 time period.

16

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

17

30. PwC has three main channels, or “tracks,” for recruiting and hiring—Campus,

18
Experienced, and Executive. PwC fills Junior Associate, Associate, and other entry-level
19
positions through its Campus track. The Experienced track recruits applicants for Experienced
20
21 and/or Senior Associate and Manager positions. Plaintiff challenges PwC’s hiring policies and

22 practices with respect to its Campus track hiring, as well as a portion of its Experienced track

23 hiring (i.e., non-management Experienced and/or Senior Associate positions). Executive track

24 hiring is not at issue here.

25

31. PwC maintains uniform employment policies throughout the United States. It

26
cultivates and promotes a common human resources strategy to recruit and maintain a young
27

28

- 8 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 9 of 27

1 workforce. Indeed, PwC conducted the “largest, most comprehensive global generational study

2 ever conducted” into how to attract and keep “Millennials.” This study interviewed 1,000
3
Millennials and conducted 44,000 web-based surveys over 18 territories.
4
32. In a 2014 Harvard Business Review article, the U.S. Chairman of PwC trumpeted
5
6 PwC’s “strikingly young” workforce: “Because we recruit approximately 8,000 graduates

7 annually from college and university campuses, two-thirds of our people are in their twenties and

8 early thirties. We’ve always employed large numbers of young people.” According to its FY

9 2013 U.S. Corporate Responsibility Report, PwC hired approximately 3,200 Experienced hires

10 and approximately 9,000 Campus hires. According to a 2016 article in The Atlantic, today PwC
11
recruits about 11,000 new hires on college campuses each year.
12
Campus Recruitment Track
13

14

33. PwC offices throughout the country use common employment policies to deter

15 and screen out applicants ages 40 and older. The Campus track recruits applicants straight out of

16 college. PwC fills entry-level positions such as Junior Associate and Associate through Campus

17 hiring, and has designated recruiters for different schools. PwC also hires college students as
18
interns (who may then be offered entry-level positions).
19
34. Individuals not affiliated with a college campus cannot apply to entry-level
20 21 positions at PwC. Entry-level positions are rarely advertised to the general public. Interested
22 applicants can browse the handful of entry-level job postings that are sometimes listed on PwC’s

23 Campus track webpage under the “Featured Jobs” section. However, applicants cannot submit

24 an application for these “Featured Jobs” without going through the Campus recruiting tool.

25 Interested applicants may also browse the jobs posted on the Experienced track webpage, but
26
entry-level accounting positions are generally not advertised there. To apply for an entry-level
27

28

- 9 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 10 of 27

1 accounting position, applicants must therefore conduct their job searches either through a

2 designated school recruiter or through PwC’s Campus webpage—a recruitment tool that, on its
3
face, targets younger, college-aged applicants. To submit their applications for entry-level
4
positions through this webpage, applicants must list their college affiliation and college year
5
6 (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or graduate student). These fields are mandatory,

7 precluding individuals who are no longer in school from submitting an application.

8 Experienced Track

9

35. PwC’s second hiring channel, the Experienced hire track, posts open positions for

10 Experienced and/or Senior Associates. Although anyone may apply for positions in this track,
11
PwC’s unlawful bias against older workers, including its focus on attracting and retaining
12
“Millennials” and its mandatory early retirement policy, systematically decreases older workers’
13

14 chances of being hired. Due to this bias, PwC intentionally denies applicants ages 40 and older

15 employment in the Covered Positions because of their age.

16 Professional Support

17

36. According to its FY 2013 U.S. Corporate Responsibility Report, PwC uses a

18
series of programs that introduce college students to the accounting profession. These programs
19
provide college students with opportunities to grow professionally while simultaneously getting
20
21 to know the firm. They include PwC’s “Personal Brand Experience,” which offers an

22 opportunity for individuals to focus on the unique characteristics that can make them stand out

23 from the crowd, and “Explore,” which introduces freshman and sophomore college students to

24 the accounting profession while developing their teamwork, strategic thinking, problem-solving,

25 and leadership skills. 26

27

28

- 10 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 11 of 27

1

37. According to its FY 2013 U.S. Corporate Responsibility Report, PwC also assigns

2 interns an associate coach, a career coach, and a relationship partner.
3
38. PwC offers all employees coaching, mentorship, and training to provide career
4
advancement. PwC employees receive world-class learning opportunities through a system
5
6 called “Learning at PwC,” where they have access to an in-depth catalogue of learning programs

7 and specialized courses. This training program has been ranked number one for three years by

8 Training magazine in its “Training Top 125,” which recognizes “the organizations with the most

9 successful learning and development programs in the world.” Because of the opportunities it
10 provides employees, PwC has repeatedly been named as one of the top three places to launch a 11
career by BusinessWeek.
12
39. By disproportionally hiring young applicants, PwC deprives class and collective
13
14 members of invaluable professional support that leads to future business and growth

15 opportunities.

16 Employment Policies

17

40. PwC maintains a uniform employment policy of exclusively conducting hiring for

18
entry-level accounting positions, such as Junior Associate or Associate, through its Campus track
19
hiring. By not advertising the overwhelming majority of entry-level accounting positions
20
21 anywhere except on college campuses and, sometimes, behind a log-in wall on its Campus

22 webpage that only those affiliated with a college can access, PwC makes it nearly impossible for

23 non-students to apply for entry-level accounting positions. To submit an application for an

24 entry-level position through PwC’s Campus webpage, applicants must list their college

25 affiliation and college year (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or graduate student).
26
Applicants ages 40 and over who are no longer affiliated with an educational institution cannot
27

28

- 11 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 12 of 27

1 answer these questions, and consequently, cannot submit their application. As a result of this

2 recruitment policy, PwC discriminates against prospective applicants ages 40 and older.
3
41. In advertising its career opportunities, PwC almost exclusively uses pictures of
4
young people. The “Campus” track webpage and the “Experienced” track webpage feature a
5
6 young-looking male and female. On its website, PwC also advertises that in 2016, 80% of its

7 workforce will be a “Millennial,” and touts its efforts to attract and keep these “Millennials” in a

8 prominently posted report. Earlier this year, PwC even rolled out a new perk targeted at

9 “Millennials”: student loan repayment assistance. On its “Diversity” webpage, PwC boasts of
10 company initiatives and support systems for many other groups, including minorities, women, 11
parents, the LGBT community, disabled workers, and veterans. These initiatives include
12
Minority Circles, Women’s Networking Circles, Parenting Circles, Professionals with
13
14 Disabilities Network, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Circles, an LGBT Partner

15 Advisory Board, a Disability Strategy Council, Connect (a mentoring program for disabled

16 employees), and Veteran’s Network (a program that helps veterans obtain transition support and

17 career development opportunities). In contrast, there is not a single initiative focused on the
18
needs or interests of older workers. Similarly, information on the “Family” section of PwC’s
19
“Diversity” webpage is focused on benefits that are primarily of interest to younger workers.
20 21 There is extensive information about the company’s generous, fully-paid parental leave policies
22 for new parents, but very little about benefits that older workers are more likely to take

23 advantage of, such as time off to care for a sick parent or spouse. By using photos of young

24 people, advertising its disproportionately young workforce, announcing its desire to maintain

25 that youthful workforce, designing benefits packages specifically for younger workers, and 26

27

28

- 12 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 13 of 27

1 largely ignoring the needs of older workers, PwC deters prospective applicants ages 40 and older

2 from applying.
3
42. PwC also intentionally disfavors hiring people 40 years of age or older for the
4
Covered Positions. PwC is very proud of its inordinately young workforce. In order to continue
5
6 to attract and maintain “Millennials,” PwC intentionally screens out individuals ages 40 and

7 older who apply for the Covered Positions and denies them employment opportunities.

8

43. PwC also has a mandatory retirement age of 60 for Partners. As a result,

9 applicants ages 40 or over are less attractive to hiring personnel because their potential

10 contributions to PwC appear limited when compared to those of similarly situated younger
11
applicants. Because of PwC’s mandatory retirement policy, PwC’s hiring personnel are
12
disincentivized from hiring applicants 40 years of age or older.
13

14

44. Together, PwC’s uniform employment policies systematically exclude and deter

15 applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older.

16 Business Opportunities

17

45. Business opportunities in the accounting profession are determined, at least in

18
part, by “Big 4” experience—meaning previous employment at PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, or Ernst
19
& Young. Because having Big 4 experience is so critical to obtaining good jobs in the
20
21 accounting profession, by not posting entry-level job openings on its website and only accepting

22 applications for these positions from college students, and by intentionally screening out

23 applicants ages 40 and older for the Covered Positions, PwC deprives applicants and prospective

24 applicants ages 40 and older from both current and future business opportunities. Thus, age

25 disparities in PwC’s allocation of business opportunities perpetuate age discrimination in the
26
accounting sector as a whole.
27

28

- 13 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 14 of 27

1 Conclusion

2

46. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class and collective action on behalf of himself,

3
individually, and all similarly situated applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in
4
the United States. This action seeks to end PwC’s discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or
5

6 practices, and to make the class and collective whole by requesting the following remedies:

7 injunctive relief to remedy systemic age discrimination; an award of back pay and front pay;

8 liquidated damages; compensatory and punitive damages; and attorneys’ fees.

9

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

10

47. Plaintiff brings this collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b)

11
seeking liability-phase injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a collective of all applicants
12

and deterred prospective applicants for the Covered Positions ages 40 and older in the United
13

14 States at any time from October 18, 2013 through the resolution of this action for claims under

15 the ADEA. Plaintiff also brings this collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b)

16 for monetary damages and other make-whole relief on behalf of a collective of all applicants and

17 deterred prospective applicants for the Covered Positions ages 40 and older in the United States

18
at any time from October 18, 2013 through the resolution of this action for claims under the

19
ADEA.
20

21

48. Plaintiff and other potential members of the collective are similarly situated in

22 that they have all sought and been denied or were deterred from applying for the Covered

23 Positions at PwC by policies and practices that have the purpose and effect of denying them

24 employment opportunities because of their age.

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 15 of 27

1

49. There are many similarly situated collective members who would benefit from the

2 issuance of a court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join the
3
present lawsuit. Notice should be sent to the collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b).
4
50. As part of its regular business practice, PwC has intentionally, willfully, and
5
6 repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the ADEA with respect to

7 Plaintiff and the collective. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to:

8

a. willfully utilizing a biased recruiting system for entry-level accounting

hiring that excludes, deters, and discriminates against workers ages 40 and

9

over; and

10

b. willfully implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that deters and

11

discriminates against applicants ages 40 and over for the Covered Positions;

12

c. willfully refusing to hire applicants ages 40 and over for the Covered

Positions.

13

51. PwC maintained and implemented these policies and practices with the purpose

14

15 and effect of denying Plaintiff and other members of the collective employment opportunities

16 because of their age. These policies cannot be justified on the basis of reasonable factors other

17 than age.

18

52. PwC is aware or should have been aware that federal law requires it to conduct

19 recruitment and hiring for the Covered Positions without regard to an applicant’s age.
20
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
21
53. Plaintiff also brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
22

23 Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (c)(4) seeking liability-phase injunctive and declaratory relief on

24 behalf of a class of all applicants and deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older for the

25 Covered Positions in California at any time from August 14, 2013 through the resolution of this

26 action for claims under the FEHA. Plaintiff also brings this class action pursuant to 27

28

- 15 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 16 of 27

1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for monetary damages and other make-whole

2 relief on behalf of a class of all applicants and deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older
3
for the Covered Positions in California at any time from August 14, 2013 through the resolution
4
of this action for claims under the FEHA. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the definition of
5
6 the class based on discovery or legal developments.

7

54. Plaintiff is a member of the class he seeks to represent.

8

55. The members of the class identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all

9 members is impracticable. As of June 2015, PwC employs over 208,000 employees worldwide

10 and approximately 53,000 in the North American region. Although Plaintiff does not know the
11
precise number of all applicants and deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older of PwC,
12
the number is far greater than can be feasibly addressed through joinder.
13

14

56. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, and these questions

15 predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include,

16 among others:

17

(a) whether PwC’s policies or practices exclude prospective applicants ages

18

40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

19

(b) whether PwC’s policies or practices deter prospective applicants ages 40

and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

20

(c) whether PwC’s policies or practices discriminate against applicants and

21

deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older;

22

(d) whether PwC intentionally disfavors applicants ages 40 and older;

23

(e) whether PwC’s policies and practices violate the FEHA;

24

(f) whether PwC’s challenged policies or practices are necessary to its

25

business operations;

26

(g) whether age is a bona fide occupational qualification; and

27

28

- 16 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 17 of 27

1

(h) whether equitable remedies, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and

2

punitive damages for the class are warranted.

3

57. The Representative Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the class.

4

58. The Representative Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the

5 interests of the members of the class. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced

6 in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection thereof.
7
59. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
8
Procedure 23(b)(2) because PwC has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable
9 10 to the class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the
11 class as a whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end PwC’s common,

12 uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices.

13

60. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

14 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting
15
only individual members of the class, and because a class action is superior to other available
16
methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been
17
18 damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of PwC’s common, uniform, unfair, and

19 discriminatory policies and practices. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are based

20 on PwC’s conduct, making these issues common to the class.

21

CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF

22 Steve Rabin
23
61. Plaintiff Steve Rabin is a 53-year-old Certified Public Accountant with over ten
24
years of accounting experience. Notwithstanding his experience, Rabin is willing to take even an
25

26

27

28

- 17 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 18 of 27

1 entry-level job at PwC because having Big 4 experience is so critical to obtaining good jobs in

2 the accounting profession.
3
62. However, because PwC generally does not post entry-level accounting jobs on its
4
website and only accepts applications for these positions from college students, Rabin was not
5
6 able to apply for an entry-level accounting position.

7

63. In October 2013, Rabin applied for a position of Seasonal Experienced Associate,

8 generally one of the lower-level positions on an audit team, in the San Jose, California office of

9 PwC.

10

64. On or around October 22, 2013, PwC interviewed him. The interview process

11
consisted of an in-person meeting and a meeting via conference call. During the course of the
12

interview, the interviewer, a Senior Assurance Manager (approximate age 35) asked Plaintiff,
13

14 “The people in the cubicles are much younger than you. How would you fit in? Would you be

15 able to work for a younger manager or director?” Rabin responded that he had worked for a

16 younger manager in the past, found it to be beneficial, and that he enjoyed the experience.

17

65. Even though Rabin was qualified for the position in all respects, he was told he

18
was not selected for the position in late October 2013.
19
66. Instead, on information and belief, PwC hired a substantially younger individual
20
21 who was not more qualified than Rabin to fill the position.

22

67. On or about December 2013, Rabin filed a charge of age discrimination with the

23 EEOC.

24

68. On or about August 14, 2014, he filed an amended charge of discrimination with

25 the EEOC specifically alleging class-wide claims on behalf of all similarly situated individuals 26

27

28

- 18 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 19 of 27

1 age 40 or older who were either deterred from applying or denied employment by PwC because

2 of their age.
3
69. This charge and amendment are considered dually filed with the DFEH pursuant
4
to the EEOC’s work-share agreement with the DFEH. The DFEH issued a Notice of Right to
5
6 Sue on December 17, 2013.

7

CAUSES OF ACTION

8

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Intentional Discrimination

9

(Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1))

10

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective)

11

70. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

12

71. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the

13 collective he represents. Plaintiff has timely filed charges with the EEOC and has thus exhausted

14 his administrative remedies. Sixty days have passed since Plaintiff has filed charges with the

15
EEOC.
16
72.
17

PwC engages in an intentional, company-wide, and systematic policy, pattern,

18 and/or practice of discrimination against applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older.

19 PwC has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and the collective in violation of the ADEA

20 by, among other things:

21

(a) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that deters prospective applicants

22

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

23

(b) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that excludes prospective applicants

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

24
(c) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that discriminates against

25

prospective applicants ages 40 and older;

26

27

28

- 19 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 20 of 27

1

(d) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that deters applicants

2

ages 40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

3

(e) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that causes PwC to

discriminate against applicants ages 40 and over who apply to the Covered

4

Positions; and

5

(f) Systematically and intentionally discriminating against applicants ages 40

and older throughout the hiring process.
6

73. These company-wide policies are intended to and do have the effect of denying
7

8 Plaintiff and the collective employment opportunities because of their age. The discriminatory

9 acts that constitute PwC’s pattern and/or practice of discrimination have occurred both within

10 and outside the liability period in this case.

11

74. Age is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the Covered Positions.

12
75. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described
13
above, Plaintiff and the collective have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past
14
15 and future income, compensation, and benefits.

16

76. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and

17 unjustified disparate treatment prohibited by 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).

18

77. Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter described.

19

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Disparate Impact Discrimination

21

(Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(2))

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective)
22

23

78. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

24

79. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the

25 collective he represents. Plaintiff has timely filed charges with the EEOC and has thus exhausted

26

27

28

- 20 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 21 of 27

1 his administrative remedies. Sixty days have passed since Plaintiff has filed charges with the

2 EEOC.
3
80. PwC maintains discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices that have an
4
adverse impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of the
5
6 ADEA and are not, and cannot be, justified by reasonable factors other than age, including but

7 not limited to the following: its near-exclusive reliance on “Campus” track hiring to fill entry-

8 level accounting positions, its requirement that applicants for entry-level positions be currently

9 affiliated with a college or university, its failure to advertise the vast majority of open entry-level
10 positions to the general public, its preference for hiring and retaining “Millennials,” and its 11
mandatory early retirement policy.
12
81. PwC has maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices both
13
14 within and outside the liability period in this case.

15

82. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described

16 above, Plaintiff and the collective have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past

17 and future income, compensation, and benefits.

18
83. The foregoing policies, patterns, and/or practices have an unlawful disparate
19
impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of by 29 U.S.C. §
20
21 623(a)(2).

22

84. Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter described.

23

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

24

Intentional Discrimination

25

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a)) (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

26
85. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

27

28

- 21 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 22 of 27

1

86. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the

2 class he represents. Plaintiff has timely filed charges with the DFEH and has thus exhausted his
3
administrative remedies.
4
87. PwC engages in an intentional, company-wide, and systematic policy, pattern,
5
6 and/or practice of discrimination against applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older.

7 PwC has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and the class in violation of the FEHA by,

8 among other things:

9

(a) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that deters prospective applicants

10

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

11

(b) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that excludes prospective applicants

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

12
(c) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that discriminates against

13

prospective applicants ages 40 and older;

14

(d) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that deters applicants

15

ages 40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

16

(e) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that causes PwC to

discriminate against applicants ages 40 and over who apply to the Covered

17

Positions; and

18

(f) Systematically and intentionally discriminating against applicants ages 40

and older throughout the hiring process.
19

88. These company-wide policies are intended to and do have the effect of denying
20

21 Plaintiff and class members employment opportunities because of their age. The discriminatory

22 acts that constitute PwC’s pattern and/or practice of discrimination have occurred both within

23 and outside the liability period in this case.

24

89. PwC has set and/or maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or

25
practices during the liability period within the state of California, and the discriminatory policies,
26

27

28

- 22 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 23 of 27

1 patterns, and/or practices have had a discriminatory impact on applicants and prospective

2 applicants ages 40 and older within the state of California.
3
90. Age is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the Covered Positions.
4
91. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described
5
6 above, Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and

7 future income, compensation, and benefits.

8

92. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination prohibited by

9 California Government Code section 12940(a).

10

93. Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter described.

11
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12

Disparate Impact Discrimination

13

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940(a), 12491)

14

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

15

94. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

16

95. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the

17 class he represents. Plaintiff has timely filed charges with the DFEH and has thus exhausted his
18 administrative remedies. 19
96. PwC maintains discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices that have an
20
adverse impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of the
21 22 FEHA and are not, and cannot be, justified by a business necessity, including but not limited to

23 the following: its near-exclusive reliance on “Campus” track hiring to fill entry-level accounting

24 positions, its requirement that applicants for entry-level positions be currently affiliated with a

25 college or university, its failure to advertise the vast majority of open entry-level positions to the
26
general public, its preference for hiring and retaining “Millennials,” and its mandatory early
27

28

- 23 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 24 of 27

1 retirement policy. Even if such systems and/or policies could be justified by business necessity,

2 less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity.

3
97. PwC has maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices
4
within and outside the liability period in this case.
5

6

98. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described

7 above, Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and

8 future income, compensation, and benefits.

9

99. The foregoing policies, patterns, and/or practices have an unlawful disparate

10 impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of California
11
Government Code sections 12940(a), 12941.
12
100. Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter described.
13

14

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF

15

101. Plaintiff and the class and collective members he seeks to represent have no plain,

16 adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the injunctive

17 relief they seek in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate relief.

18
Plaintiff and the class and collective members he seeks to represent are now suffering, and will

19
continue to suffer, irreparable injury from PwC’s discriminatory acts and omissions.
20

21

102. PwC’s actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiff and class and collective

22 members substantial losses in employment opportunities, earnings, and other employment

23 benefits.

24

103. In addition, Plaintiff and class and collective members suffered and continue to

25 suffer emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, all to their damage in an
26
amount according to proof.
27

28

- 24 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 25 of 27

1

104. PwC performed the acts herein alleged with malice, oppression, or fraud.

2 Plaintiff and class members are thus entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount according

3
to proof.
4
5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6

105. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and the class and collective pray for relief as follows:

7

(a) Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed class;

8

(b) Designation of Plaintiff Steve Rabin as representative of the class;

9

(c) Designation of Representative Plaintiff’s counsel of record as class

counsel;
10

11

(d) A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and violate 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; and California Government

12

Code sections 12940, et seq.;

13

(e) A preliminary and permanent injunction against PwC and its Partners,

officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all

14

persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in policies, patterns,

and/or practices that discriminate against Plaintiff and the class because of

15

their age;

16

(f) An order that PwC institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs

17

that provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless

of age, and that it eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful

18

employment practices;

19

(g) An order appointing a monitor to ensure that PwC complies with the

injunction provisions of any decree that the Court orders;
20

21

(h) An order retaining jurisdiction over this action to ensure that PwC complies with such a decree;

22
(i) An order for front pay benefits to Plaintiff and class and collective

23

members;

24

(j) Back pay (including interest and benefits) for Plaintiff and class and

collective members;
25

26

27

28

- 25 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 26 of 27

1

(k) All damages sustained as a result of PwC’s conduct, including damages

2

for emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof;

3
(l) Liquidated damages;

4
(m) Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with PwC’s

5

ability to pay and to deter future conduct;

6

(n) Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent

allowable by law;
7

8

(o) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

9

(p) Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems

necessary, just, and proper.

10
JURY DEMAND

11

106. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. §
12

13 626(c)(2), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.

14

15 Dated: San Francisco, California
April 27, 2016
16
17

Respectfully submitted,

18

By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi

Jahan C. Sagafi

19

Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)

20

Katrina L. Eiland (Cal. Bar No. 275701)

Julia Rabinovich (Cal. Bar No. 290730)

21

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

22

San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 638-8800

23

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

24

E-mail: keiland@outtengolden.com

E-mail: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com
25

26

27

28

- 26 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 1 Filed 04/27/16 Page 27 of 27

1

Adam T. Klein (pro hac vice forthcoming)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

2

3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

New York, New York 10016

3

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

4

E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com

5

Daniel Kohrman (pro hac vice forthcoming)

Laurie McCann (pro hac vice forthcoming)

6

Dara Smith (pro hac vice forthcoming)

AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION

7

601 E. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20049

8

Telephone: (202) 434-2060

Facsimile: (202) 434-2082

9

E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org

E-mail: lmccann@aarp.org

10

E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org

Jennifer L. Liu (Cal. Bar No. 279370)

11

THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.

1170 Market Street, Suite 700

12

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 896-4260

13

Facsimile: (415) 231-0011

E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com
14

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Class and

15

Collective Members

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 27 -

Class and Collective Action Complaint

 
 Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 1 of 34

1 Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)

2

Katrina L. Eiland (Cal. Bar No. 275701) Julia Rabinovich (Cal. Bar No. 290730)

3 OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor

4 San Francisco, CA 94111

Telephone: (415) 638-8800
5 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

6

E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com E-mail: keiland@outtengolden.com

7 E-mail: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com

Daniel Kohrman (admitted pro hac vice) Laurie McCann (admitted pro hac vice) Dara Smith (admitted pro hac vice) AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 Facsimile: (202) 434-2082 E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org E-mail: lmccann@aarp.org E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org

8 Adam T. Klein (admitted pro hac vice)

Jennifer L. Liu (Cal. Bar No. 279370)

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
9 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C. 1170 Market Street, Suite 700

10

New York, New York 10016 Telephone: (212) 245-1000

San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-4260

11 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com

Facsimile: (415) 231-0011 E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com

12

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members
13

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

16 STEVE RABIN and JOHN CHAPMAN,

17

on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated,

18

Plaintiffs,

19
v.
20
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,
21
Defendant.
22

Case No. 16-cv-02276- JST Hon. Jon S. Tigar
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF ADEA AND STATE LAWS CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 2 of 34

1

Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Steve Rabin and John Chapman (“Plaintiffs”), on

2 behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, allege, upon personal knowledge as to

3 themselves and upon information and belief as to other matters, as follows:

4

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

5

1. This is a class and collective action brought by applicants to Defendant

6
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”) alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
7
Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. (“ADEA”), as well as the
8

9 California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12900, et seq.(“FEHA”),

10 California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), and the

11 Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101, et seq. (“MCRA”).

12

PwC

13

2. PwC is a global accounting and auditing firm. The firm has offices in 157

14
countries and over 208,000 employees worldwide. The firm is also very profitable. For the year
15

ending June 30, 2015, PwC’s global gross revenues were $35.4 billion.
16

17

3. PwC classifies its accountants in the following general hierarchy: Junior

18 Associates, Associates, Experienced and/or Senior Associates, Junior Managers, Managers,

19 Senior Managers, Junior Directors, Directors, Senior Directors. Above those individuals are

20 Partners, Managing Partners, a Board of Partners and Principals of PwC, and a Global Board of
21
the PwC global network of affiliated entities.
22
4. PwC prides itself on attracting and retaining young workers. PwC has conducted
23 24 extensive research on maintaining a workforce of Millennials. In 2013, PwC commissioned the
25 largest, most comprehensive global generational study ever conducted of Millennial employees

26 and how to retain them. PwC generally does not hire older individuals for its Associate and

27

28
- 2 -
FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 3 of 34

1 other entry-level positions. Rather, it generally hires younger individuals, with an emphasis on
2 hiring through on-campus hiring. 3
Discrimination against older workers
4
5. PwC’s culture and practices have distributed the benefits of its enormous success
5 6 unequally—systematically favoring younger applicants at the expense of their older counterparts.
7 Individuals 40 years of age and older are rarely in an Associate position at PwC.

8

6. PwC maintains hiring policies and practices for giving preference to younger

9 employees that result in the disproportionate employment of younger applicants. PwC’s
10 unlawful bias against older workers manifests itself in several ways, including but not limited to: 11
(1) a near-exclusive reliance on a recruitment system for entry-level accounting positions that
12
requires applicants to be affiliated with a university, (2) a focus on attracting and retaining
13
14 “Millennials,” and (3) a mandatory early retirement policy that requires Partners to retire by age

15 60. As a result of this bias against older workers, older accountants who are equally or more

16 qualified have been systematically excluded from the career opportunities that are afforded to

17 people who work for PwC.
18
7. The underrepresentation of workers over age 40 at PwC is stark. In its 2011 U.S.
19
Corporate Responsibility Summary Report, PwC boasted that the average age of its workforce
20 21 was 27, and that two out of three PwC employees were in their 20s and early 30s. Of that group,
22 75% reported that PwC was their first job out of college. According to its own figures, in 2016,

23 almost 80% of PwC employees will be Millennials, individuals between the ages of 21 and 36.

24 Not surprisingly, the number of workers 40 years of age and older in entry-level and lower to 25 mid-level positions is stunningly low. 26

27

28

- 3 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 4 of 34

1

8. PwC’s demographics sharply diverge from the relevant labor pool. According to

2 the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics’ 2013 Labor Force Statistics, the
3
median age of accountants and auditors in the United States is 43.2 years old. Approximately
4
35% of accountants and auditors nationwide are Millennials. At 80% of its workforce,
5
6 Millennials are vastly overrepresented at PwC, and employees ages 40 and older are notably

7 underrepresented in its workforce.

8

9. According to a 2013 industry study by CareersinAudit.com, 57% of accountants

9 believe that ageism is prevalent in the industry. Forty-seven percent believe that accountants 40

10 years of age or older find it difficult to get promoted or to get a new job. Of the survey
11
participants ages 50 and over, 37% believe they had missed out on career opportunities because
12
of their age.
13

14

PwC’s recruiting and hiring

15

10. PwC has three main channels, or “tracks,” for recruiting and hiring—Campus,

16 Experienced, and Executive. PwC fills Junior Associate, Associate, and other entry-level

17 positions straight out of college through the Campus track. PwC recruits applicants for
18
Experienced and/or Senior Associate and Manager positions through its Experienced track.
19
Plaintiff challenges PwC’s hiring policies and practices with respect to its Campus track hiring,
20 21 as well as a portion of its Experienced track hiring (i.e., non-management Experienced and/or
22 Senior Associate positions). Executive track hiring is not at issue here.

23

11. PwC’s recruiting and hiring policies, patterns, and/or practices have a disparate

24 impact on applicants 40 years of age or older because they deter applicants 40 years of age or

25 older from applying and disfavor hiring those applicants 40 years of age or older who do apply.
26
Specifically, its Campus track recruiting results in disproportionately higher employment of
27

28

- 4 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 5 of 34

1 younger employees than their older comparators. This is because PwC generally does not post

2 job openings for Associate and other entry-level positions on its website, even though it regularly

3
posts job openings for “Experienced” hires on its website. The only way to apply to these
4
positions is through PwC’s Campus track recruitment tool, which requires a college affiliation.
5

6

12. In addition, PwC has a continuing policy, pattern, and/or practice of subjecting all

7 Associate applicants 40 years of age or older to disparate treatment. Namely, PwC intentionally

8 disfavors hiring people 40 years of age or older for both entry-level and Experienced-level

9 Associate positions. Upon information and belief, when applicants 40 years of age or older
10 apply for an Associate position, regardless of level, PwC intentionally screens them out and 11
denies them employment opportunities because of their age.
12
13. These policies, patterns, and/or practices are no accident. Rather, they are part
13
14 and parcel of PwC’s corporate culture. PwC has intentionally implemented these companywide

15 policies and practices throughout the United States in order to maintain its youthful culture.

16 PwC’s policies and practices have the effect of deterring prospective applicants ages 40 and

17 older from applying and denying job opportunities to those individuals ages 40 and older who do

18
apply. PwC provides compliance consulting services and undoubtedly understands the

19
consequences of its own recruitment policies and practices.
20

21

14. PwC also requires Partners to retire at the age of 60. Therefore, the closer an

22 applicant is to the age of 60, the less time PwC would employ that individual as a Partner and the

23 less return on investment an applicant can offer PwC. Because of the organization’s mandatory

24 retirement policy, PwC’s hiring personnel are incentivized to hire applicants under 40 years of 25 age. 26

27

28

- 5 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 6 of 34

1

15. Older applicants denied employment at PwC continue to experience repercussions

2 stemming from PwC’s discriminatory hiring protocols throughout their careers. Because many
3
jobs in the accounting field require applicants to have previous employment at PwC, KPMG,
4
Deloitte, or Ernst & Young (collectively known as the Big 4), accountants ages 40 and older are
5
6 shut out of future business opportunities and professional growth as a result of PwC’s

7 discriminatory policies.

8

16. Accordingly, in addition to bringing this action on his own behalf, Plaintiff also

9 brings this action on behalf of a class and collective of similarly situated applicants 40 years of
10 age or older who have been (1) denied employment in Junior Associate, Associate, Experienced 11
Associate, or Senior Associate or comparable positions (the “Covered Positions”) and/or (2)
12
deterred from applying to work in the Covered Positions at PwC, in order to end PwC’s
13
14 discriminatory policies and/or practices and to make the class and collective whole.

15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

16

17. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over the ADEA claims

17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Section 7(c) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(c).
18
18. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims under 28
19
U.S.C. § 1367, because they arise from a common nucleus of operative facts with the federal
20 21 claims and are so related to the federal claims as to form part of the same case or controversy
22 under Article III of the United States Constitution.

23

19. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California has

24 personal jurisdiction over PwC because the firm does business in California and in this District,

25 and because some of the acts complained of and giving rise to the claims alleged occurred in and
26
emanated from this District.
27

28

- 6 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 7 of 34

1

20. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a

2 substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in this District.
3
21. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies and complied with all
4
statutory prerequisites to their ADEA claims. Rabin filed a charge of age discrimination on or
5
6 about December 11, 2013 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). He

7 subsequently filed an amended charge of discrimination specifically alleging classwide claims on

8 behalf of all similarly situated individuals age 40 or older denied employment by PwC on August

9 14, 2014. Sixty days have passed since the filing of this amended charge. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1).

10 Because Chapman is similarly situated to Rabin, having been affected by the ongoing
11
discriminatory policies and practices raised in Rabin’s charge, Rabin’s charge satisfies the
12
ADEA’s administrative exhaustion requirement for Chapman.
13

14

22. Pursuant to the EEOC’s work-sharing agreement with the California Department

15 of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), Rabin’s charge and amendment are considered

16 dually filed with the DFEH. By notice dated December 17, 2013, the DFEH dismissed Rabin’s

17 case and issued a Notice of Right to Sue.

18
23. Pursuant to the EEOC’s work-sharing agreement with the Michigan Department
19
of Civil Rights (“MDCR”), Chapman’s charge is considered dually filed with the MDCR. The
20
21 MCRA imposes no administrative exhaustion requirements.

22

24. Any and all other prerequisites to the filing of this suit have been met.

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 8 of 34

1

PARTIES

2 Plaintiff Steve Rabin
3
25. Plaintiff Steve Rabin is a Certified Public Accountant, who lives in Fremont,
4
California. He graduated from the California Institute of Technology with a B.S. in
5
6 Mathematics. He is a citizen of the United States. He was born in 1962 and is now 53 years old.

7

26. In or around October 2013, at the age of 50, Rabin applied for the position of

8 Seasonal Experienced Associate with PwC. His employment application was directed to PwC’s

9 San Jose office. That same month, PwC notified him that it had rejected his application.
10 Plaintiff John Chapman 11
27. Plaintiff John Chapman has a Master’s degree in accounting with ten years of
12
experience in bookkeeping. He is a citizen of the United States. He was born in 1968 and is
13
14 now 47 years old.

15

28. In or around April 2016, he applied for a Tax Transfer Pricing Associate position

16 in Detroit, Michigan. PwC rejected his application.

17 Defendant PwC

18
29. Upon information and belief, Defendant PwC is a Delaware limited partnership
19
formed under the laws of the State of Delaware with a place of business within San Francisco,
20
21 and County of San Francisco at Three Embarcadero Center San Francisco, California 94111.

22

30. Upon information and belief, Defendant PwC maintains control, oversight, and

23 direction over the operation of its facilities, including its employment practices.

24

31. Defendant PwC interviewed Plaintiff for a position and rejected his application,

25 with the purpose and effect of denying him employment because of his age. 26

27

28

- 8 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 9 of 34

1

32. On information and belief, Defendant PwC employs over 184,000 people

2 worldwide. At the end of fiscal year 2015, PwC employed 53,656 people in its North American
3
and Caribbean region. Hundreds or thousands of potential class members have applied,
4
attempted to apply, or been interested in applying to the Covered Positions during the relevant
5
6 time period.

7

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8

33. PwC has three main channels, or “tracks,” for recruiting and hiring—Campus,

9 Experienced, and Executive. PwC fills Junior Associate, Associate, and other entry-level
10 positions through its Campus track. The Experienced track recruits applicants for Experienced 11
and/or Senior Associate and Manager positions. Plaintiff challenges PwC’s hiring policies and
12
practices with respect to its Campus track hiring, as well as a portion of its Experienced track
13
14 hiring (i.e., non-management Experienced and/or Senior Associate positions). Executive track

15 hiring is not at issue here.

16

34. PwC maintains uniform employment policies throughout the United States. It

17 cultivates and promotes a common human resources strategy to recruit and maintain a young

18
workforce. Indeed, PwC conducted the “largest, most comprehensive global generational study
19
ever conducted” into how to attract and keep “Millennials.” This study interviewed 1,000
20
21 Millennials and conducted 44,000 web-based surveys over 18 territories.

22

35. In a 2014 Harvard Business Review article, the U.S. Chairman of PwC trumpeted

23 PwC’s “strikingly young” workforce: “Because we recruit approximately 8,000 graduates

24 annually from college and university campuses, two-thirds of our people are in their twenties and

25 early thirties. We’ve always employed large numbers of young people.” According to its FY
26
2013 U.S. Corporate Responsibility Report, PwC hired approximately 3,200 Experienced hires
27

28

- 9 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 10 of 34

1 and approximately 9,000 Campus hires. According to a 2016 article in The Atlantic, today PwC
2 recruits about 11,000 new hires on college campuses each year. 3
Campus Recruitment Track
4
36. PwC offices throughout the country use common employment policies to deter
5 6 and screen out applicants ages 40 and older. The Campus track recruits applicants straight out of
7 college. PwC fills entry-level positions such as Junior Associate and Associate through Campus

8 hiring, and has designated recruiters for different schools. PwC also hires college students as

9 interns (who may then be offered entry-level positions).

10

37. Individuals not affiliated with a college campus cannot apply to entry-level

11
positions at PwC. Entry-level positions are rarely advertised to the general public. Interested
12

applicants can browse the handful of entry-level job postings that are sometimes listed on PwC’s
13

14 Campus track webpage under the “Featured Jobs” section. However, applicants cannot submit

15 an application for these “Featured Jobs” without going through the Campus recruiting tool.

16 Interested applicants may also browse the jobs posted on the Experienced track webpage, but

17 entry-level accounting positions are generally not advertised there. To apply for an entry-level
18
accounting position, applicants must therefore conduct their job searches either through a
19
designated school recruiter or through PwC’s Campus webpage—a recruitment tool that, on its
20 21 face, targets younger, college-aged applicants. To submit their applications for entry-level
22 positions through this webpage, applicants must list their college affiliation and college year

23 (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or graduate student). These fields are mandatory,

24 precluding individuals who are no longer in school from submitting an application. 25

26

27

28

- 10 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 11 of 34

1 Experienced Track

2

38. PwC’s second hiring channel, the Experienced hire track, posts open positions for

3
Experienced and/or Senior Associates. Although anyone may apply for positions in this track,
4
PwC’s unlawful bias against older workers, including its focus on attracting and retaining
5

6 “Millennials” and its mandatory early retirement policy, systematically decreases older workers’

7 chances of being hired. Due to this bias, PwC intentionally denies applicants ages 40 and older

8 employment in the Covered Positions because of their age.

9 Professional Support

10

39. According to its FY 2013 U.S. Corporate Responsibility Report, PwC uses a

11
series of programs that introduce college students to the accounting profession. These programs
12

provide college students with opportunities to grow professionally while simultaneously getting
13

14 to know the firm. They include PwC’s “Personal Brand Experience,” which offers an

15 opportunity for individuals to focus on the unique characteristics that can make them stand out

16 from the crowd, and “Explore,” which introduces freshman and sophomore college students to

17 the accounting profession while developing their teamwork, strategic thinking, problem-solving,

18
and leadership skills.
19
40. According to its FY 2013 U.S. Corporate Responsibility Report, PwC also assigns
20
21 interns an associate coach, a career coach, and a relationship partner.

22

41. PwC offers all employees coaching, mentorship, and training to provide career

23 advancement. PwC employees receive world-class learning opportunities through a system

24 called “Learning at PwC,” where they have access to an in-depth catalogue of learning programs

25 and specialized courses. This training program has been ranked number one for three years by
26
Training magazine in its “Training Top 125,” which recognizes “the organizations with the most
27

28

- 11 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 12 of 34

1 successful learning and development programs in the world.” Because of the opportunities it
2 provides employees, PwC has repeatedly been named as one of the top three places to launch a 3
career by BusinessWeek.
4
42. By disproportionally hiring young applicants, PwC deprives class and collective
5 6 members of invaluable professional support that leads to future business and growth
7 opportunities.

8 Employment Policies

9

43. PwC maintains a uniform employment policy of exclusively conducting hiring for

10 entry-level accounting positions, such as Junior Associate or Associate, through its Campus track
11
hiring. By not advertising the overwhelming majority of entry-level accounting positions
12
anywhere except on college campuses and, sometimes, behind a log-in wall on its Campus
13

14 webpage that only those affiliated with a college can access, PwC makes it nearly impossible for

15 non-students to apply for entry-level accounting positions. To submit an application for an

16 entry-level position through PwC’s Campus webpage, applicants must list their college

17 affiliation and college year (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, or graduate student).

18
Applicants ages 40 and over who are no longer affiliated with an educational institution cannot
19
answer these questions, and consequently, cannot submit their application. As a result of this
20
21 recruitment policy, PwC discriminates against prospective applicants ages 40 and older.

22

44. In advertising its career opportunities, PwC almost exclusively uses pictures of

23 young people. The “Campus” track webpage and the “Experienced” track webpage feature a

24 young-looking male and female. On its website, PwC also advertises that in 2016, 80% of its

25 workforce will be a “Millennial,” and touts its efforts to attract and keep these “Millennials” in a
26
prominently posted report. Earlier this year, PwC even rolled out a new perk targeted at
27

28

- 12 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 13 of 34

1 “Millennials”: student loan repayment assistance. On its “Diversity” webpage, PwC boasts of
2 company initiatives and support systems for many other groups, including minorities, women, 3
parents, the LGBT community, disabled workers, and veterans. These initiatives include
4
Minority Circles, Women’s Networking Circles, Parenting Circles, Professionals with
5 6 Disabilities Network, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Circles, an LGBT Partner
7 Advisory Board, a Disability Strategy Council, Connect (a mentoring program for disabled

8 employees), and Veteran’s Network (a program that helps veterans obtain transition support and

9 career development opportunities). In contrast, there is not a single initiative focused on the
10 needs or interests of older workers. Similarly, information on the “Family” section of PwC’s 11
“Diversity” webpage is focused on benefits that are primarily of interest to younger workers.
12
There is extensive information about the company’s generous, fully-paid parental leave policies
13
14 for new parents, but very little about benefits that older workers are more likely to take

15 advantage of, such as time off to care for a sick parent or spouse. By using photos of young

16 people, advertising its disproportionately young workforce, announcing its desire to maintain

17 that youthful workforce, designing benefits packages specifically for younger workers, and

18
largely ignoring the needs of older workers, PwC deters prospective applicants ages 40 and older

19
from applying.
20

21

45. PwC also intentionally disfavors hiring people 40 years of age or older for the

22 Covered Positions. PwC is very proud of its inordinately young workforce. In order to continue

23 to attract and maintain “Millennials,” PwC intentionally screens out individuals ages 40 and

24 older who apply for the Covered Positions and denies them employment opportunities.

25

46. PwC also has a mandatory retirement age of 60 for Partners. As a result,

26
applicants ages 40 or over are less attractive to hiring personnel because their potential
27

28

- 13 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 14 of 34

1 contributions to PwC appear limited when compared to those of similarly situated younger

2 applicants. Because of PwC’s mandatory retirement policy, PwC’s hiring personnel are
3
disincentivized from hiring applicants 40 years of age or older.
4
47. Together, PwC’s uniform employment policies systematically exclude and deter
5
6 applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older.

7

48. Notwithstanding this discrimination, PwC claims on its website that it is an equal

8 opportunity employer. In particular, on its career pages, PwC states in multiple places: “All

9 qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment at PwC without regard to race;
10 creed; color; religion; national origin; sex; age; disability; sexual orientation; gender identity or 11
expression; genetic predisposition or carrier status; veteran, marital, or citizenship status; or any
12
other status protected by law.”
13
14 PwC is a Gateway Employer in the Accounting Industry

15

49. Business opportunities in the accounting profession are determined, at least in

16 part, by “Big 4” experience—meaning previous employment at PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, or Ernst

17 & Young. Because having Big 4 experience is so critical to obtaining good jobs in the
18
accounting profession, by not posting entry-level job openings on its website and only accepting
19
applications for these positions from college students, and by intentionally screening out
20 21 applicants ages 40 and older for the Covered Positions, PwC deprives applicants and prospective
22 applicants ages 40 and older from both current and future business opportunities. Thus, age

23 disparities in PwC’s allocation of business opportunities perpetuate age discrimination in the

24 accounting sector as a whole. 25

26

27

28

- 14 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 15 of 34

1 Conclusion

2

50. Accordingly, Plaintiffs brings this class and collective action on behalf of

3
themselves, individually, and all similarly situated applicants and prospective applicants ages 40
4
and older in the United States. This action seeks to end PwC’s discriminatory policies, patterns,
5

6 and/or practices, and to make the class and collective whole by requesting the following

7 remedies: injunctive relief to remedy systemic age discrimination; declaratory relief; an award of

8 back pay and front pay; liquidated damages; compensatory and punitive damages; restitution;

9 and attorneys’ fees.

10

COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS

11
51. Plaintiffs bring this collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b)
12

seeking liability-phase injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of a collective of all applicants
13

14 and deterred prospective applicants for the Covered Positions ages 40 and older in the United

15 States, who were denied employment at PwC or deterred from applying for employment at PwC,

16 at any time from October 18, 2013, through the resolution of this action for claims under the

17 ADEA. Plaintiffs also bring this collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b) for
18
monetary damages and other make-whole relief on behalf of a collective of all applicants and
19
deterred prospective applicants for the Covered Positions ages 40 and older in the United States,
20 21 who were denied employment at PwC or deterred from applying for employment at PwC, at any
22 time from October 18, 2013 through the resolution of this action for claims under the ADEA.

23

52. Plaintiffs and other potential members of the collective are similarly situated in

24 that they have all sought and been denied or were deterred from applying for the Covered

25 Positions at PwC by policies and practices that have the purpose and effect of denying them
26
employment opportunities because of their age.
27

28

- 15 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 16 of 34

1

53. There are many similarly situated collective members who would benefit from the

2 issuance of a court-supervised notice of the present lawsuit and the opportunity to join the
3
present lawsuit. Notice should be sent to the collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§ 216(b), 626(b).
4
54. As part of its regular business practice, PwC has intentionally, willfully, and
5
6 repeatedly engaged in a pattern, practice, and/or policy of violating the ADEA with respect to

7 Plaintiff and the collective. This policy and pattern or practice includes, but is not limited to:

8

a. willfully utilizing a biased recruiting system for entry-level accounting

hiring that excludes, deters, and discriminates against workers ages 40 and

9

over; and

10

b. willfully implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that deters and

11

discriminates against applicants ages 40 and over for the Covered Positions;

12

c. willfully refusing to hire applicants ages 40 and over for the Covered

Positions.

13

55. PwC maintained and implemented these policies and practices with the purpose

14

15 and effect of denying Plaintiff and other members of the collective employment opportunities

16 because of their age. These policies cannot be justified on the basis of reasonable factors other

17 than age.

18

56. PwC is aware or should have been aware that federal law requires it to conduct

19 recruitment and hiring for the Covered Positions without regard to an applicant’s age.
20
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
21
57. Plaintiff Rabin also brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
22

23 Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (c)(4) seeking liability-phase injunctive and declaratory relief on

24 behalf of a class of all denied applicants and deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older

25 for the Covered Positions in California at any time (1) from August 14, 2013 through the

26 resolution of this action for claims under FEHA and (2) from four years prior to the filing of this

27

28

- 16 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 17 of 34

1 complaint through the resolution of this action for claims under the UCL. Rabin also brings this
2 class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for monetary damages 3
and other make-whole relief on behalf of a class of all denied applicants and deterred prospective
4
applicants ages 40 and older for the Covered Positions in California at any time (1) from August
5 6 14, 2013 through the resolution of this action for claims under FEHA and (2) from four years
7 prior to the filing of this complaint through the resolution of this action for claims under the

8 UCL. Rabin reserves the right to amend the definition of the class based on discovery or legal

9 developments.

10

58. Plaintiff Chapman also brings this class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

11
Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), and (c)(4) seeking liability-phase injunctive and declaratory relief on
12

behalf of a class of all denied applicants and deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older
13

14 for the Covered Positions in Michigan at any time from three years before the filing of this

15 complaint through the resolution of this action for claims under the MCRA. Rabin also brings

16 this class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) for monetary

17 damages and other make-whole relief on behalf of a class of all denied applicants and deterred
18
prospective applicants ages 40 and older for the Covered Positions in Michigan at any time from
19
three years before the filing of this complaint through the resolution of this action for claims
20 21 under the MCRA. Chapman reserves the right to amend the definition of the class based on
22 discovery or legal developments.

23

59. Plaintiffs are members of the classes they to represent.

24

60. The members of the classes identified herein are so numerous that joinder of all

25 members is impracticable. As of June 2015, PwC employs over 208,000 employees worldwide
26
and approximately 53,000 in the North American region. Although Plaintiffs do not know the
27

28

- 17 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 18 of 34

1 precise number of all applicants and deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older of PwC,

2 the number is far greater than can be feasibly addressed through joinder.
3
61. There are questions of law and fact common to the class, and these questions
4
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. Common questions include,
5
6 among others:

7

(a) whether PwC’s policies or practices exclude prospective applicants ages

40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

8

(b) whether PwC’s policies or practices deter prospective applicants ages 40

9

and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

10

(c) whether PwC’s policies or practices discriminate against applicants and

11

deterred prospective applicants ages 40 and older;

12

(d) whether PwC intentionally disfavors applicants ages 40 and older;

13

(e) whether PwC’s policies and practices violate FEHA;

14

(f) whether PwC’s policies and practices violate the MCRA;

15

(g) whether PwC’s challenged policies or practices are necessary to its

business operations;
16

17

(h) whether age is a bona fide occupational qualification; and

18

(i) whether equitable remedies, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and

punitive damages for the class are warranted.

19
62. The Representative Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the classes
20
63. The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
21

22 interests of the members of the classes. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and

23 experienced in complex class actions, employment discrimination litigation, and the intersection

24 thereof.

25

64. Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

26 Procedure 23(b)(2) because PwC has acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable 27

28

- 18 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 19 of 34

1 to the class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the
2 class as a whole. The class members are entitled to injunctive relief to end PwC’s common, 3
uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and practices.
4
65. Class certification is also appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
5 6 23(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting
7 only individual members of the class, and because a class action is superior to other available

8 methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this litigation. The class members have been

9 damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of PwC’s common, uniform, unfair, and
10 discriminatory policies and practices. The propriety and amount of punitive damages are based 11
on PwC’s conduct, making these issues common to the class.
12
CLAIMS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFFS
13
14 Steve Rabin

15

66. Plaintiff Steve Rabin is a 53-year-old Certified Public Accountant with over ten

16 years of accounting experience. Notwithstanding his experience, Rabin is willing to take even an

17 entry-level job at PwC because having Big 4 experience is so critical to obtaining good jobs in
18
the accounting profession.
19
67. However, because PwC generally does not post entry-level accounting jobs on its
20 21 website and only accepts applications for these positions from college students, Rabin was not
22 able to apply for an entry-level accounting position.

23

68. In October 2013, Rabin applied for a position of Seasonal Experienced Associate,

24 generally one of the lower-level positions on an audit team, in the San Jose, California office of 25 PwC. 26

27

28

- 19 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 20 of 34

1

69. On or around October 22, 2013, PwC interviewed him. The interview process

2 consisted of an in-person meeting and a meeting via conference call. During the course of the
3
interview, the interviewer, a Senior Assurance Manager (approximate age 35) asked Plaintiff,
4
“The people in the cubicles are much younger than you. How would you fit in? Would you be
5
6 able to work for a younger manager or director?” Rabin responded that he had worked for a

7 younger manager in the past, found it to be beneficial, and that he enjoyed the experience.

8

70. Even though Rabin was qualified for the position in all respects, he was told he

9 was not selected for the position in late October 2013.

10

71. Instead, on information and belief, PwC hired a substantially younger individual

11
who was not more qualified than Rabin to fill the position.
12

72. On or about December 2013, Rabin filed a charge of age discrimination with the
13

14 EEOC.

15

73. On or about August 14, 2014, he filed an amended charge of discrimination with

16 the EEOC specifically alleging classwide claims on behalf of all similarly situated individuals

17 age 40 or older who were either deterred from applying or denied employment by PwC because
18
of their age.
19
74. This charge and amendment are considered dually filed with the DFEH pursuant
20 21 to the EEOC’s work-share agreement with the DFEH. The DFEH issued a Notice of Right to
22 Sue on December 17, 2013.

23 John Chapman

24

75. John Chapman, who is 47 years old, earned a Master’s Degree in accounting in

25 2014 and has been earning credit towards his doctorate since then. He has approximately ten
26
years of bookkeeping experience and some experience teaching accounting classes.
27

28

- 20 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 21 of 34

1

76. Chapman was interested in both entry-level and experienced associate positions at

2 PwC because he is interested in PwC’s tax practice, he wants experience to qualify as a Certified

3
Public Accountant, and Big 4 experience is essential for securing a job in the accounting
4
profession.
5

6

77. Chapman applied to the following entry-level positions with PwC between

7 December 2014 and April 2016: Transfer Pricing Associate positions in Virginia and Tax Core

8 Associate positions in Texas. Although he was qualified for these positions, PwC did not select

9 him. PwC did not provide a reason for rejecting his applications.

10

78. On or around March 8, 2016, Chapman applied for an Audit/Assurance

11
Experienced Associate position with PwC in Denver, Colorado and a Transfer Pricing
12

Experienced Associate position in Houston, Texas. Although he was qualified for these
13

14 positions, PwC did not select him. PwC did not provide a reason for rejecting his application.

15

79. On or around April 17, 2016, Chapman applied for Tax Transfer Pricing

16 Associate Summer/Fall 2016 position with PwC in Detroit, Michigan. PwC did not select him

17 for this position, but did not give him a reason for his rejection. Although he was qualified for
18
this position, PwC did not select him. PwC did not provide a reason for rejecting his application.
19
80. During one of his in-person interviews, a senior manager expressed concern about
20 21 whether Chapman would have a problem reporting to and working with people younger than
22 himself. Chapman said that this was not a problem for him. Chapman later indirectly heard

23 feedback from a current PwC staff person knowledgeable about the market for entry-level

24 accountants, who reacted to his efforts to obtain an accounting job with PwC with the comment 25 that “I would question whether the pace of public accounting will be up this guy’s alley” and 26

27

28

- 21 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 22 of 34

1 suggested seeking work abroad, noting, for example, that a firm with a slower pace of work
2 could be more suitable for someone with Chapman’s background. 3
81. On or about July 13, 2016, Chapman filed a charge of discrimination with the
4
EEOC alleging classwide claims on behalf of all similarly situated individuals age 40 or older
5 6 who were either deterred from applying or denied employment by PwC because of their age.
7 This charge and amendment are considered dually filed with the MCRA pursuant to the EEOC’s

8 work-sharing agreement with the MDCR.

9

CAUSES OF ACTION

10

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

11

Intentional Discrimination

(Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(1))

12

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective)

13

82. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

14

83. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and

15
the collective they represent. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies. Sixty days
16
have passed since Rabin has filed charges with the EEOC.
17

18

84. PwC engages in an intentional, companywide, and systematic policy, pattern,

19 and/or practice of discrimination against applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older.

20 PwC has intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and the collective in violation of the

21 ADEA by, among other things:

22

(a) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that deters prospective applicants

23

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

24

(b) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that excludes prospective applicants

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;
25

(c) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that discriminates against

26

prospective applicants ages 40 and older;

27

28

- 22 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 23 of 34

1

(d) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that deters applicants

2

ages 40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

3

(e) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that causes PwC to

discriminate against applicants ages 40 and over who apply to the Covered

4

Positions; and

5

(f) Systematically and intentionally discriminating against applicants ages 40

and older throughout the hiring process.
6

85. These companywide policies are intended to and do have the effect of denying
7

8 Plaintiffs and the collective employment opportunities because of their ages. The discriminatory

9 acts that constitute PwC’s pattern and/or practice of discrimination have occurred both within

10 and outside the liability period in this case.

11

86. Age is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the Covered Positions.

12
87. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described
13
above, Plaintiff and the collective have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past
14
15 and future income, compensation, and benefits.

16

88. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination and

17 unjustified disparate treatment prohibited by 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1).

18

89. Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter described.

19

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

20

Disparate Impact Discrimination

21

(Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 623(a)(2))

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Collective)
22

23

90. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

24

91. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and

25 the collective they represent. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies. Sixty days

26 have passed since Rabin has filed charges with the EEOC.

27

28

- 23 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 24 of 34

1

92. PwC maintains discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices that have an

2 adverse impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of the
3
ADEA and are not, and cannot be, justified by reasonable factors other than age, including but
4
not limited to the following: its near-exclusive reliance on “Campus” track hiring to fill entry-
5
6 level accounting positions, its requirement that applicants for entry-level positions be currently

7 affiliated with a college or university, its failure to advertise the vast majority of open entry-level

8 positions to the general public, its preference for hiring and retaining “Millennials,” and its

9 mandatory early retirement policy.

10

93. PwC has maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices both

11
within and outside the liability period in this case.
12

94. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described
13

14 above, Plaintiff and the collective have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past

15 and future income, compensation, and benefits.

16

95. The foregoing policies, patterns, and/or practices have an unlawful disparate

17 impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of by 29 U.S.C. §

18
623(a)(2).
19
96.
20
21

Plaintiffs request relief as hereinafter described. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

22

Intentional Discrimination

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(a))

23

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Rabin and the Class)

24

97. Plaintiff Rabin incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

25

26

27

28

- 24 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 25 of 34

1

98. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff Rabin on behalf of himself and

2 the class he represents. Rabin has timely filed charges with the DFEH and has thus exhausted
3
his administrative remedies.
4
99. PwC engages in an intentional, companywide, and systematic policy, pattern,
5
6 and/or practice of discrimination against applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older.

7 PwC has intentionally discriminated against Rabin and the class in violation of FEHA by, among

8 other things:

9

(a) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that deters prospective applicants

10

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

11

(b) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that excludes prospective applicants

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

12
(c) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that discriminates against

13

prospective applicants ages 40 and older;

14

(d) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that deters applicants

15

ages 40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

16

(e) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that causes PwC to

discriminate against applicants ages 40 and over who apply to the Covered

17

Positions; and

18

(f) Systematically and intentionally discriminating against applicants ages 40

and older throughout the hiring process.
19

100. These companywide policies are intended to and do have the effect of denying
20

21 Plaintiff and class members employment opportunities because of their age. The discriminatory

22 acts that constitute PwC’s pattern and/or practice of discrimination have occurred both within

23 and outside the liability period in this case.

24

101. PwC has set and/or maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or

25
practices during the liability period within the state of California, and the discriminatory policies,
26

27

28

- 25 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 26 of 34

1 patterns, and/or practices have had a discriminatory impact on applicants and prospective
2 applicants ages 40 and older within the state of California. 3
102. Age is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the Covered Positions.
4
103. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described
5 6 above, Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and
7 future income, compensation, and benefits.

8

104. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination prohibited by

9 California Government Code section 12940(a).

10

105. Rabin requests relief as hereinafter described.

11
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12

Disparate Impact Discrimination

13

(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12940(a), 12491)

14

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Rabin and the Class)

15

106. Plaintiff Rabin incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

16

107. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff Rabin on behalf of himself and

17 the class he represents. Rabin has timely filed charges with the DFEH and has thus exhausted
18 his administrative remedies. 19
108. PwC maintains discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices that have an
20
adverse impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of FEHA
21 22 and are not, and cannot be, justified by a business necessity, including but not limited to the
23 following: its near-exclusive reliance on “Campus” track hiring to fill entry-level accounting

24 positions, its requirement that applicants for entry-level positions be currently affiliated with a

25 college or university, its failure to advertise the vast majority of open entry-level positions to the

26
general public, its preference for hiring and retaining “Millennials,” and its mandatory early
27

28

- 26 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 27 of 34

1 retirement policy. Even if such systems and/or policies could be justified by business necessity,

2 less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity.

3
109. PwC has maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices
4
within and outside the liability period in this case.
5

6

110. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described

7 above, Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and

8 future income, compensation, and benefits.

9

111. The foregoing policies, patterns, and/or practices have an unlawful disparate

10 impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of California
11
Government Code sections 12940(a), 12941.
12
112. Plaintiff requests relief as hereinafter described.
13

14

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

15

Unfair Competition

(California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.

16

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Rabin and the Class)

17

113. Plaintiff Rabin incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

18

114. The foregoing conduct, as alleged, violates the California Unfair Competition

19 Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., which prohibits, inter alia, unfair
20
competition in the form of any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal.
21
Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.
22
115. PwC committed, and continues to commit, unlawful and unfair business practices,
23
24 including (1) engaging in an intentional, companywide, and systemic policy, pattern, and/or

25 practice of discrimination against applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in

26 violation of FEHA and the ADEA, and (2) maintaining discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or

27

28

- 27 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 28 of 34

1 practices that have an adverse impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older

2 in violation of FEHA and the ADEA. Each of these violations constitutes an independent and
3
separate violation of the UCL. PwC also committed fraudulent business practices by claiming
4
that it does not discriminate in hiring against any protected groups, yet maintaining policies and
5
6 practices that have the intent and impact of discriminating against applicants ages 40 and older.

7

116. Plaintiff Rabin and Class Members have suffered injury in fact as a result of

8 PwC’s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business policies and practices.

9

117. PwC’s conduct alleged herein occurred during the four years preceding the filing

10 of this complaint.
11
118. PwC’s unfairly obtained benefits and profits as a direct and proximate result of its
12
unlawful conduct alleged herein and has an unfair competitive advantage over employers who
13

14 comply with FEHA and the ADEA because older workers are typically compensated more than

15 their younger colleagues. Plaintiff and Class Members are therefore entitled to disgorgement by

16 PwC of those unlawfully obtained profits.

17

119. Rabin and Class Members are entitled to appropriate restitution, injunctive relief,

18
attorneys’ fees, and declaratory relief stating that PwC’s hiring policies and practices
19
systematically and intentionally discriminate against applicants and prospective applicants ages
20
21 40 and older and result in the disproportionate employment of younger applicants.

22

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

23

Intentional Discrimination

(Michigan Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(a) )

24

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Chapman and the Class)

25

120. Plaintiff Chapman incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

26

27

28

- 28 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 29 of 34

1

121. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff Chapman on behalf of himself

2 and the class he represents. No administrative remedies must be exhausted prerequisite to this

3
claim.
4
122.
5

PwC engages in an intentional, companywide, and systematic policy, pattern,

6 and/or practice of discrimination against applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older.

7 PwC has intentionally discriminated against Chapman and the class in violation of the MCRA

8 by, among other things:

9

(a) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that deters prospective applicants

10

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

11

(b) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that excludes prospective applicants

ages 40 and older from applying for the Covered Positions;

12
(c) Utilizing a biased recruitment system that discriminates against

13

prospective applicants ages 40 and older;

14

(d) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that deters applicants

15

ages 40 and over from applying to the Covered Positions;

16

(e) Implementing a mandatory early retirement policy that causes PwC to

discriminate against applicants ages 40 and over who apply to the Covered

17

Positions; and

18

(f) Systematically and intentionally discriminating against applicants ages 40

and older throughout the hiring process.
19

123. These companywide policies are intended to and do have the effect of denying
20

21 Plaintiff and class members employment opportunities because of their age. The discriminatory

22 acts that constitute PwC’s pattern and/or practice of discrimination have occurred both within

23 and outside the liability period in this case.

24

124. PwC has set and/or maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or

25
practices during the liability period within the state of California, and the discriminatory policies,
26

27

28

- 29 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 30 of 34

1 patterns, and/or practices have had a discriminatory impact on applicants and prospective
2 applicants ages 40 and older within the state of California. 3
125. Age is not a bona fide occupational qualification for the Covered Positions.
4
126. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described
5 6 above, Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and
7 future income, compensation, and benefits.

8

127. The foregoing conduct constitutes illegal, intentional discrimination prohibited by

9 Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(a)

10

128. Chapman requests relief as hereinafter described.

11
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
12

Disparate Impact Discrimination

13

(Michigan Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2202(b) )

14

(On Behalf of Plaintiff Rabin and the Class)

15

129. Plaintiff Chapman incorporates the preceding paragraphs as alleged above.

16

130. This Claim is brought by Representative Plaintiff Chapman on behalf of himself

17 and the class he represents. No administrative remedies must be exhausted prerequisite to this
18 claim. 19
131. PwC maintains discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices that have an
20
adverse impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of the
21 22 MCRA and are not, and cannot be, justified by a business necessity, including but not limited to
23 the following: its near-exclusive reliance on “Campus” track hiring to fill entry-level accounting

24 positions, its requirement that applicants for entry-level positions be currently affiliated with a

25 college or university, its failure to advertise the vast majority of open entry-level positions to the

26
general public, its preference for hiring and retaining “Millennials,” and its mandatory early
27

28

- 30 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 31 of 34

1 retirement policy. Even if such systems and/or policies could be justified by business necessity,

2 less discriminatory alternatives exist and would equally serve any alleged necessity.

3
132. PwC has maintained these discriminatory policies, patterns, and/or practices
4
within and outside the liability period in this case.
5

6

133. As a direct result of PwC’s discriminatory policies and/or practices as described

7 above, Plaintiff and the class have suffered damages including, but not limited to, lost past and

8 future income, compensation, and benefits.

9

134. The foregoing policies, patterns, and/or practices have an unlawful disparate

10 impact on applicants and prospective applicants ages 40 and older in violation of Mich. Comp.
11
Law 37.2202(b).
12
135. Chapman requests relief as hereinafter described.
13

14

ALLEGATIONS REGARDING RELIEF

15

136. Plaintiffs and the classes and collective members they seek to represent have no

16 plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs alleged herein, and the

17 injunctive relief they seek in this action is the only means of securing complete and adequate

18
relief. Plaintiffs and the class and collective members they seek to represent are now suffering,

19
and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from PwC’s discriminatory acts and omissions.
20

21

137. PwC’s actions have caused and continue to cause Plaintiffs and class and

22 collective members substantial losses in employment opportunities, earnings, and other

23 employment benefits.

24

138. In addition, Plaintiffs and class and collective members suffered and continue to

25 suffer emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, all to their damage in an
26
amount according to proof.
27

28

- 31 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 32 of 34

1

139. PwC performed the acts herein alleged with malice, oppression, or fraud.

2 Plaintiffs and class members are thus entitled to recover punitive damages in an amount

3
according to proof.
4
5

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

6

140. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the class and collective pray for relief as follows:

7

(a) Certification of the case as a class action on behalf of the proposed

classes;

8

(b) Designation of each Representative Plaintiff as a class representative for

9

his or her respective state claims;

10

(c) Designation of Representative Plaintiffs’ counsel of record as class

11

counsel;

12

(d) A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are

unlawful and violate 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; California Government

13

Code sections 12940, et seq.; California Business & Professions Code

sections 17200, et seq.; and Michigan Comp. Laws § 37.2101, et seq.;
14

(e) A preliminary and permanent injunction against PwC and its Partners,

15

officers, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all

16

persons acting in concert with them, from engaging in policies, patterns,

and/or practices that discriminate against Plaintiff and the class because of

17

their age;

18

(f) An order that PwC institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs

that provide equal employment opportunities for all employees regardless

19

of age, and that it eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful

20

employment practices;

21

(g) An order appointing a monitor to ensure that PwC complies with the

injunction provisions of any decree that the Court orders;

22
(h) An order retaining jurisdiction over this action to ensure that PwC

23

complies with such a decree;

24

(i) An order for front pay benefits to Plaintiff and class and collective

25

members;

26

(j) Back pay (including interest and benefits) for Plaintiff and class and collective members;

27

28

- 32 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 33 of 34

1

(k) All damages sustained as a result of PwC’s conduct, including damages

2

for emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof;

3
(l) Liquidated damages;

4
(m) An award of restitution to Plaintiff and class and collective members that

5

reflects PwC’s unlawfully obtained profits;

6

(n) Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with PwC’s

ability to pay and to deter future conduct;
7

8

(o) Costs incurred herein, including reasonable attorneys’ fees to the extent allowable by law;

9
(p) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and

10

(q) Such other and further legal and equitable relief as this Court deems

11

necessary, just, and proper.

12

JURY DEMAND

13

141. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 29 U.S.C. §

14
626(c)(2), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.

15

Dated: September 8, 2016
16

Respectfully submitted,

17

By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi Jahan C. Sagafi

18
Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)

19

Katrina L. Eiland (Cal. Bar No. 275701)

Julia Rabinovich (Cal. Bar No. 290730)

20

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

21

One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

22

Telephone: (415) 638-8800

Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

23

E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

E-mail: keiland@outtengolden.com

24

E-mail: jrabinovich@outtengolden.com

25

26

27

28

- 33 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 42 Filed 09/08/16 Page 34 of 34

1

Adam T. Klein (admitted pro hac vice)

2

OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor

3

New York, New York 10016

Telephone: (212) 245-1000

4

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060

E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
5

6

Daniel Kohrman (admitted pro hac vice) Laurie McCann (admitted pro hac vice)

7

Dara Smith (admitted pro hac vice)

AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION

8

601 E. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20049

9

Telephone: (202) 434-2060

10

Facsimile: (202) 434-2082 E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org

11

E-mail: lmccann@aarp.org

E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org

12

Jennifer L. Liu (Cal. Bar No. 279370)

13

THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.

14

1170 Market Street, Suite 700

San Francisco, CA 94102

15

Telephone: (415) 896-4260

Facsimile: (415) 231-0011

16

E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com

17

Counsel for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and

18

Collective Members

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 34 -

FIRST AMENDED CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT

CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

 
 Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 103 Filed 04/17/17 Page 1 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 STEVE RABIN, ET AL.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,

11

Defendant.

Case No.16-cv-02276-JST
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION Re: ECF No. 84

12

Before the Court is Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s (“PwC”) motion for

13 certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The Court will deny the motion.

14 I. BACKGROUND

15

On February 17, 2017, the Court denied PwC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings,

16 rejecting PwC’s argument that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) does not

17 permit job applicants to bring disparate impact claims. ECF No. 74. On March 8, 2017, PwC

18 filed a motion for certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). ECF No. 84. Plaintiffs oppose the

19 motion. ECF No. 89.

20 II. LEGAL STANDARD

21

The final judgment rule ordinarily provides that courts of appeal shall have jurisdiction

22 only over “final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. However,

23 “[w]hen a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this

24 section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which

25 there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order

26 may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in

27 such order.” 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). “Certification under § 1292(b) requires the district court to

28 expressly find in writing that all three § 1292(b) requirements are met.” Couch v. Telescope Inc.,

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 103 Filed 04/17/17 Page 2 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 611 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). “These certification requirements are (1) that there be a

2 controlling question of law, (2) that there be substantial grounds for difference of opinion, and (3)

3 that an immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” In re

4 Cement Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1981), aff’d sub 5 nom. Arizona v. Ash Grove Cement Co., 459 U.S. 1190 (1983).1

6

“Section 1292(b) is a departure from the normal rule that only final judgments are

7 appealable, and therefore must be construed narrowly.” James v. Price Stern Sloan, Inc., 283 F.3d

8 1064, 1067 n.6 (9th Cir. 2002). To that end, “section 1292(b) is to be applied sparingly and only

9 in exceptional cases.” In re Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d at 1027.

10 III. ANALYSIS

11

The Court concludes that PwC has failed to show that two of the three requirements under

12 section 1292(b) are met.

13

A. Controlling Question of Law

14

A “controlling” question of law may only be found in those “exceptional situations in

15 which allowing an interlocutory appeal would avoid protracted and expensive litigation.” In re

16 Cement Antitrust Litigation, 673 F.2d at 1026. A question of law is controlling if “the resolution

17 of the issue on appeal could materially affect the outcome of litigation in the district court.” Id. at

18 1027. “[A] mixed question of law and fact,” by itself, is not appropriate for permissive

19 interlocutory review. Steering Comm. v. United States, 6 F.3d 572, 575 (9th Cir. 1993). Indeed,

20 this prong is only “satisfied [when] at least one ‘pure’ question of law is presented.” Flores v.

21 Velocity Express, LLC, No. 12-CV-05790-JST, 2015 WL 4463639, at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 21,

22 2015) (citing Steering Comm. v. United States, 6 F.3d 572, 575-76 (9th Cir. 1993) (“We have held

23 that the presence of a pure legal question permits the court to resolve all questions material to the

24

25

26

1 Plaintiffs argue that even if the three requirements are met, a district court “‘may, but need not,’ exercise its discretion to allow an appeal.” ECF No, 91-4 at 8 (quoting In re Cement Antitrust

27

Litigation, 673 F.2d at 1026). But that language governs a court of appeals’ decision to exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal, not the district court’s analysis. In re Cement Antitrust

28 Litigation, 673 F.2d at 1026.

2

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 103 Filed 04/17/17 Page 3 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 order[.]”)).2

2

Here, there is no dispute that the question is a purely legal one. Determining whether the

3 ADEA permits disparate impact claims by job applicants requires no factual findings. But that is

4 not the end of the inquiry. As Plaintiffs note, even if the Ninth Circuit disagrees with the Court

5 about the viability of their ADEA disparate impact claim, Plaintiffs still have California and

6 Michigan disparate impact claims under FEHA. FAC ¶¶ 106-112 (California claim); ¶¶ 129-135

7 (Michigan claim). Initial discovery shows, moreover, that PwC’s “policies and practices appear to

8 be substantially uniform nationwide.” Sagafi Decl. ¶¶ 6-9. Additionally, Plaintiffs’ provided

9 evidence that PwC’s data system for applications is not divided geographically. ECF No. 91-9 at 10 6.3 In other words, regardless of whether Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claims are limited to those to

11 states or remain nationwide in scope, the necessary discovery will be similar. Therefore,

12 “[a]lthough the question is a legal one, it is not controlling, as the resolution of this question will

13 not “save time for the district court, and time and expense for the litigants.” Rodman v. Safeway

14 Inc., No. 11-CV-03003-JST, 2015 WL 3863653, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015).

15

Moreover, much of the discovery on Plaintiffs’ disparate impact claim would overlap with

16 the discovery required for their disparate treatment claim. ECF No. 91-4 at 11. For example,

17 evidence of PwC’s policies and practices related to recruitment and hiring is relevant to both types

18 of claims. Id. And although a statistical analysis is not required to prove a treatment claim like it

19 is with an impact claim, “both [] disparate treatment and disparate impact claims can be proven

20 using the same statistical showing.” Moore v. Napolitano, 926 F. Supp. 2d 8, 20 (D.D.C. 2013).

21 The Court concludes that this first factor is not satisfied.

22

23

24

2 The Court agrees with PwC that “neither § 1292(b)’s literal text nor controlling precedent requires that the interlocutory appeal have a final, dispositive effect on the litigation.” Reese v.

25

BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681, 688 (9th Cir. 2011). Therefore, the fact that Plaintiffs’ suit would continue even if the Ninth Circuit reversed the Court’s ADEA disparate

26 impact ruling does not necessarily mean interlocutory review should be unavailable.

27

3 In reply, PwC states that Plaintiffs’ data claims are inaccurate because it “stores application data by individual job requisition, and data can be extracted from the database only in limited

28

packets—thus, the more data that must be extracted, the greater the burden.” ECF No. 93 at 6. But PwC provides no declaration in support of that statement.

3

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 103 Filed 04/17/17 Page 4 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

B. Difference of Opinion

2

“To determine if a ‘substantial ground for difference of opinion’ exists under § 1292(b),

3 courts must examine to what extent the controlling law is unclear.” Couch v. Telescope Inc., 611

4 F.3d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 2010). Generally, such a difference exists where “the circuits are in

5 dispute on the question and the court of appeals of the circuit has not spoken on the point . . . .” Id.

6 (citing 3 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 3:212 (2010) (footnotes omitted)).

7

As this Court noted in its order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings, “a

8 majority of judges on the Villareal en banc panel” disagreed with the Court’s determination that

9 section 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act permits disparate impact claims by job

10 applicants. ECF No. 74 at 9. PwC argues that the split between this Court and the Eleventh

11 Circuit in Villareal satisfies the difference of opinion prong.

12

PwC does not identify, and this Court could not locate, a case in which a court found a

13 difference of opinion based on a single contrary ruling by another circuit. Generally, courts have

14 found this prong not satisfied when the moving party cannot identify any competing authority.

15 See, e.g., Guidiville Rancheria of California v. United States, No. 12-CV-1326 YGR, 2014 WL

16 5020036, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2014); Steshenko v. Gayrard, No. 13-CV-03400-LHK, 2014 WL

17 7204784, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2014). Here, there may not be a split of authority among the

18 circuits, but the Court concludes that the Villareal decision suffices to show that a “substantial

19 ground for difference of opinion” exists. Couch, 611 F.3d at 633. This factor is satisfied.

20

C. Appeal May Materially Advance the Litigation

21

“When litigation will be conducted in substantially the same manner regardless of our

22 decision, the appeal cannot be said to materially advance the ultimate termination of the

23 litigation.” Hansen Beverage Co. v. Innovation Ventures, LLC., No. 08CV1166 IEG(POR), 2010

24 WL 743750, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010). “[T]he considerations of this factor overlap

25 significantly with the first one.” Rodman, 2015 WL 3863653, at *3 (quoting Rollins v. Dignity

26 Health, No. 13–CV–01450–TEH, 2014 WL 6693891, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2014)).

27

As described above, because a reversal on the ADEA disparate impact issue would leave

28 Plaintiffs’ ADEA disparate treatment and state disparate impact claims intact, interlocutory appeal 4

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 103 Filed 04/17/17 Page 5 of 5

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 would offer little assistance in “avoid[ing] protracted and expensive litigation.” In re Cement, 673

2 F.2d at 1026. Of course, the burden of producing discovery on 50 states is greater than the burden

3 from 2 states, ECF No. 93 at 6-7, but the Court does not find that the difference satisfies section

4 1292(b)’s “’exceptional circumstances’ standard.” In re Cement, 673 F.2d at 1026.

5

The one case PwC cites in its moving papers does not require certification. In Reese v. BP

6 Expl. (Alaska) Inc., 643 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s

7 grant of section 1292(b) certification because reversal on appeal could have eliminated one of the

8 defendants entirely, as well as one category of claims “against all remaining defendants.” Id. at

9 688. Here, by contrast, reversal would certainly not eliminate PwC from the case; nor would it

10 eliminate one category of claims, since any reversal would not impact Plaintiffs’ state disparate

11 impact claims. In sum, the Court concludes that interlocutory appeal would not materially

12 advance the litigation.

13

CONCLUSION

14

Only one of the three factors for interlocutory review is satisfied. Therefore, the Court

15 denies PwC’s motion for section 1292(b) certification.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated: April 17, 2017

18

______________________________________

19

JON S. TIGAR

20

United States District Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

 
 Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 1 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 STEVE RABIN, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10 PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,

11

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-02276-JST
ORDER DENYING COLLECTIVE CERTIFICATION Re: ECF No. 198

12

13

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Steve Rabin and John Chapman’s motion for conditional

14 certification of their proposed collective action. ECF No. 198. They seek to certify a class of

15 older applicants for employment at Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (“PwC”), alleging

16 that such applicants were subject to age discrimination. As set forth below, the Court concludes

17 that Rabin and Chapman are not substantially similar either to unqualified applicants or to deterred

18 applicants, both of which categories are part of the larger collective action they seek to certify. 19 Accordingly, the Court denies the motion.1

20 I. BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiffs filed this putative collective action on April 27, 2016. ECF No. 1. They allege

22 that PwC “engag[es] in an intentional, companywide, and systemic policy, pattern, and/or practice

23 of discrimination against [older] applicants” and “maintain[s] discriminatory policies, patterns,

24 and/or practices that have an adverse impact on [older] applicants and prospective applicants.”

25

26 1 The Court has filed this order under seal because it contains material subject to sealing orders.

27

Within seven days of the filing date of this order, the parties’ shall provide the Court a stipulated redacted version of this order, redacting only those portions of the order containing or referring to

28

material for which the Court has granted a motion to seal and for which the parties’ still request the material be sealed. The Court will then issue a redacted version of the order.

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 2 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 ECF No. 42 ¶ 115. Plaintiffs claim that PwC “maintains hiring policies and practices for giving

2 preference to younger employees that result in the disproportionate employment of younger

3 applicants.” Id. ¶ 6. According to the complaint, these practices also deter older applicants from

4 applying for positions at PwC in the first place. Id. ¶ 11.

5

Defendant PwC is a global accounting and auditing firm that employs more than 70,000

6 employees in the Americas. ECF No. 198-6 at 19-20, 44. By PwC’s own account, its “workforce

7 is strikingly young.” ECF No. 198 at 13 n.25. Two-thirds of its employees are in their 20s and

8 early 30s. ECF No. 198-4 at 115. Within that group, most are unmarried (75 percent) and without

9 children (92 percent). Id. “[F]or three out of four of them, PwC is their first job out of college.”

10 Id. In 2013, PwC predicted that “almost 80 percent of PwC’s workforce will be comprised of

11 Millennials.” Id. PwC’s chairman Bob Moritz explains that PwC has historically had a young 12 workforce, in part because “most hires will eventually move on to other firms or other careers.”2

13 In 2011-2012 PwC, along with the University of Southern California and London School of 14 Business, studied millennials in the workforce.3

15

PwC utilizes a central hiring system, with companywide policies and procedures for each

16 step of the hiring process, including job postings, interviewing, and hiring. Ex. 25. PwC also

17 maintains a central recruiting database. Ex. 58. Interview processes are governed by uniform

18 guidelines, and interviewers are trained centrally. Exs. 13, 25. Plaintiffs provide evidence about

19 PwC recruitment and human resources strategies which suggest that the company favors younger

20 employees and disfavors older applicants. For example, PwC emails refer to applicants over forty

21 as “too old,” “matur[e],” or “non-traditional,” and PwC interviewers utilized questions suggesting

22 that older applicants may not thrive with long hours or new technology. ECF No. 198-5 at 79

23 (describing some candidates as “too old” and some as “a bit young”); id. at 26 (referring to a

24 candidate as “mature”); id. at 35 (rating non-traditional candidate as highly as possible); ECF No.

25

26 2 Bob Moritz, The U.S. Chairman of PwC on Keeping Millennials Engaged, https://hbr.org/2014

27

/11/the-us-chairman-of-pwc-on-keeping-millennials-engaged (Nov. 2014), cited in ECF No. 198 at 13 n.25.

28 3 Id. 2

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 3 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 198-4 at 28; ECF No. 198-8 at 55. Plaintiffs also explain that recruiters appear disinterested in

2 older applicants at recruiting events. ECF No. 198-8 at 32; id. at 92; id. at 248. PwC features

3 predominantly young people on its website. ECF No. 198-6 at 1.4

4

Plaintiffs also allege that PwC steers older applicants into less desirable seasonal positions,

5 referred to as the Flexibility Talent Network (“FTN”), which have lesser benefits and fewer

6 opportunities for training and career advancement. ECF No. 198 at 16. Moreover, PwC recruits

7 along two separate tracks, “campus” and “experienced,” and much of PwC’s associate hiring is on

8 the campus track. PwC interns come exclusively from campus hiring and 85-90% of interns

9 convert into full-time associates. Exs. 45, 90. Moreover, PwC spends far more money on campus

10 recruiting than it does on experienced track recruiting. Ex. 42.

11

Plaintiffs now seek to certify a collective action of “all individuals aged 40 and older who,

12 from October 18, 2013 forward, applied or attempted to apply but were not hired for a full-time

13 Covered Position (Associate, Experienced Associate, and Senior Associate) in the Tax or

14 Assurance lines of service.” ECF No. 198 at 26-27. Putative collective action members who

15 “attempted to apply” are also called “deterred applicants.” See, e.g., ECF No. 211 at 28; ECF No.

16 218 at 20.5 To qualify for one of these covered positions, applicants must have a bachelor’s or

17 master’s degree in a particular field (for example, accounting or taxation), a minimum grade point

18 average (“GPA”), a commitment to obtain a certified public accountant (“CPA”) license, and

19 between zero and four years of experience. ECF No. 198-7 at 1-16.

20

Plaintiff declares that he Steve Rabin applied for a position as a Seasonal Experienced

21 Associate at the age of 50. ECF No. 198-8 at 208-09. At his interview, a senior manager asked,

22

23 4 For example, the declaration of Kelli King states, “the pictures on PwC’s website depicted only

24

younger people, and its promotional quotes include statements like, ‘I went to PwC out of college.’” ECF No. 198-8 at 159. Cynthia Woolbright declares that “when I visited PwC’s

25

website in 2014 and 2017 to look at job postings and apply for jobs, I noticed that the website featured mostly young people.” Id. at 251. Joycelyn Wooten states that “PwC’s website, which

26

features college campus career fairs and on-campus interviewing, also illustrates that PwC’s recruitment efforts are mainly focused on young, college-aged individuals.” Id. at 260.

27 5 This group is not every “deterred applicant,” but only that subset “who applied to FTN (i.e., non-

28

Covered) positions and those who expressed interest in applying to the Covered Positions but whom PwC screened out or steered away before they could apply.” ECF No. 218 at 20.

3

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 4 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 “The people in the cubicles are much younger than you. How would you fit in? Would you be

2 able to work for a younger manager or director?” Id. at 209. Rabin answered the question

3 satisfactorily, but was not hired for the position. He states that he could tell from the question and

4 the manager’s tone of voice that he “viewed [Rabin’s] age as a disadvantage.” Id. Rabin also

5 states that he attempted to apply on a separate occasion for an Associate position posted on PwC’s

6 “campus” website, but was unable to do so because he did not have a school email or mailing

7 address. Id. at 210.

8

Plaintiff John Chapman declares that he was qualified for a position at PwC, and applied

9 “numerous” times while he was between the ages of 45 and 48, but never received a position. Id.

10 at 61. In a 2014 interview, a PwC manager asked Chapman whether he would be comfortable

11 working with young people. Id. at 61-62. The manager “admitted that this was likely an

12 inappropriate question to ask a candidate.” Id. at 62. Chapman did not get the job. During his

13 three-year job application period, Chapman “attended several PwC ‘meet and greet’ and pre-

14 interview events where [he] met approximately twenty to thirty PwC Associates, Experienced

15 Associates, and Senior Associates. None of them appeared to be over the age of 30.” Id. While

16 PwC employees described Chapman in internal emails as “very smart” and thought “highly of

17 him,” ECF No. 198-5 at 73, they also described him as “non-traditional,” “matur[e],” and “not the

18 right fit.” Id.; ECF No. 197-5 at 27.

19

Both Rabin and Chapman state that their inability to obtain employment at PwC has hurt

20 their larger career prospects. According to Rabin, “a significant portion (probably the vast

21 majority) of accounting opportunities that [he is] interested in require ‘Big Four’ accounting

22 experience.6 In other words, PwC (in tandem with its three main competitors) functions as a

23 gateway employer in the accounting industry. [His] inability to secure a job with PwC has

24 negatively affected [his] efforts to secure other accounting employment.” ECF No. 198-8 at 62.

25 Similarly, Chapman states that “as a ‘Big 4’ firm, [PwC] functions as a gateway employer for the

26 accounting industry.” Id. When Chapman has interviewed at other employers, they have asked

27

28

6 The Big Four firms are the four largest accounting firms: PwC, Deloitte, KPMG, and Ernst & Young.

4

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 5 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 why he did not have Big 4 experience or why he was not currently working at a Big 4 firm.

2

Plaintiffs also offer the written testimony of Dr. David Neumark, a labor economist. Dr.

3 Neumark studied preliminary hiring data from PwC and found “very strong statistical deviations

4 from age-neutrality in hiring . . . strongly consistent with discrimination in favor of younger

5 applicants.” ECF No. 198-3 ¶¶ 5, 14, 21. Neumark concluded that over a three-and-a-half year

6 period, PwC hired younger applicants six times more often than older applicants. Id. ¶¶ 5, 14,

7 Table 1. In his deposition, Neumark explained that he did not assess whether older applicants

8 were discouraged from applying to PwC. ECF No. 211-4 at 9. Likewise, Neumark did not assess

9 whether any other variables which correlate with age played a role in the statistical disparity. Id.

10 at 13-14.

11

23 individuals have already opted into the collective action, and 28 collective members and

12 potential members, who applied to covered positions and were qualified but rejected, submitted

13 declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ motion. ECF No. 198-1 at ¶¶ 127-155.

14 II. LEGAL STANDARD

15

Plaintiffs seek collective certification of their Age Discrimination in Employment Act

16 (“ADEA”) case under the standards set forth under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29

17 U.S.C. § 216(b). The ADEA incorporates the collective action procedures of FLSA, set forth in

18 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See 29 U.S.C. § 626(b); Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co., 669 F. Supp. 2d 1124,

19 1130 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“[B]ecause ADEA incorporates § 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act

20 into its enforcement scheme, the same rules govern judicial management of collective actions

21 under both statutes. . . .”).

22

29 U.S.C. § 216(b) provides that actions against employers may be brought “in any Federal

23 or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself

24 or themselves and other employees similarly situated.” A suit brought on behalf of other

25 employees is known as a “collective action,” a type of suit that is “fundamentally different” from

26 class actions. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 74 (2013) (citing Hoffmann–La

27 Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 169–70 (1989)). For example, unlike in class actions,

28 members of a collective action must file a “consent to sue” letter with the court in which the action 5

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 6 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 is brought creating an opt-in class. 29 U.S.C. 216(b). Also different is that “‘conditional

2 certification’ does not produce a class with an independent legal status, or join additional parties to

3 the action.” Genesis, 569 U.S. at 75. Collective actions allow aggrieved employees “the

4 advantage of lower individual costs to vindicate rights by the pooling of resources.” Hoffman–

5 LaRoche, 493 U.S. at 170.

6

Certification requires a showing that the potential class members are “similarly situated.”

7 Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127 (citation omitted). A majority of courts, including district courts

8 in this circuit, follow a two-step process for determining whether a class is “similarly situated.”

9 See Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp., 753 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1003 (2010); Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d

10 at 1127.

11

At the first step, alternatively called “the notice stage” and “conditional certification,” the

12 court considers whether the plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to justify the conditional

13 certification of the class and the sending of notice of the action to potential class members. Lewis,

14 669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127. In making this determination, “the court requires little more than

15 substantial allegations, supported by declarations or discovery, that the putative class members

16 were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.” Id. (internal quotation marks

17 omitted). In other words, “[b]ecause the court generally has a limited amount of evidence before

18 it, the initial determination is usually made under a fairly lenient standard and typically results in

19 conditional class certification.” Leuthold v. Destination Am., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 462, 467 (N.D. Cal.

20 2004); see also Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127. “The fact that a defendant submits competing

21 declarations will not as a general rule preclude conditional certification.” Harris v. Vector Mktg.

22 Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 835, 838 (N.D. Cal. 2010); see also Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros. Inc., 941 F.

23 Supp. 2d 1197, 1203 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (“[C]ourts need not even consider evidence provided by

24 defendants at this stage[.]”).

25

“At the second step of the two-step inquiry, ‘the party opposing the certification may

26 move to decertify the class once discovery is complete.’” Heath v. Google Inc., 215 F. Supp. 3d

27 844, 852 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Adams v. Inter–Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530, 536

28 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). At that stage, the court evaluates the collective action under a stricter standard 6

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 7 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 for “similarly situated.” Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127. At that point, the court considers several

2 factors, “including the disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; the

3 various defenses available to the defendant which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; fairness

4 and procedural considerations; and whether the plaintiffs made any required filings before

5 instituting suit.” Id. “Considerations involving the merits of claims are more appropriately

6 addressed at the second stage of the analysis when [fewer] facts are in dispute.” Kellgren v. Petco

7 Animal Supplies, Inc., No. 13CV644 L KSC, 2015 WL 5167144, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2015).

8 III. DISCUSSION

9

To show that certification is appropriate, Plaintiffs “must provide substantial allegations,

10 supported by declarations or discovery, that the putative class members were together the victims

11 of a single decision, policy, or plan.” Saleh v. Valbin Corp., 297 F. Supp. 3d 1025, 1033 (N.D.

12 Cal. 2017) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Stated differently, Plaintiffs must show that

13 there is “some identifiable factual or legal nexus [that] binds together the various claims of the

14 class members in a way that hearing the claims together promotes judicial efficiency and comports

15 with the broad remedial policies underlying the FLSA.” Russell v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 07-

16 CV-3993-CW, 2008 WL 4104212, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2008). Plaintiffs argue that they have

17 offered more than sufficient evidence to show that PwC deliberately recruits and hires younger

18 workers to the detriment of older workers, and that these documents, witness declarations, and

19 statistical analyses “bind[] together” the class members’ claims and make collective adjudication

20 appropriate. ECF No. 198 at 28.

21

PwC argues that this evidence does not show a company-wide policy or practice. The

22 company describes ageist comments by PwC personnel as “anomalous.” ECF No. 211 at 13-14.

23 PwC focuses on minor differences between the experiences of the declarants, for example that

24 “some applied through their colleges despite being over 40, while others applied to Associate-level

25 positions online rather than on campus,” or that “some declarants attended PwC recruiting events

26 and felt ignored or unwelcome, while others attended similar events and were encouraged to

27 apply.” Id. at 10-11. Finally, PwC notes that Dr. Neumark’s statistical evidence is subject to

28 alternative interpretations that are inconsistent with liability. Id. at 16-18. 7

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 8 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

These differences, while perhaps significant at a later stage of the case, are insufficient to

2 defeat conditional certification. In Heath v. Google, an ADEA case alleging age discrimination in

3 hiring computer engineers, the defendant made similar arguments in opposing conditional

4 certification. 215 F. Supp. 3d at 854 (arguing that the only uniform policy is an antidiscrimination

5 policy, and that age-related comments by recruiters and interviews were mere “stray remarks”).

6 That court concluded that the defendant’s arguments went to the merits and should be addressed at

7 a future stage. Id.; see also c.f. Deatrick v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA, Inc., No. 13-CV-05016-

8 JST, 2014 WL 5358723, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2014) (reserving the consideration of “disparate

9 factual and employment settings” and “various defenses available to the defendant with respect to

10 each plaintiff” for the second stage of the certification process). Here, the Court likewise

11 concludes that Plaintiffs have adequately shown a uniform decision, policy, or plan on the basis of

12 PwC’s centralized and uniform hiring policies, and the substantial evidence of age disparities in

13 hiring. ECF No. 198 at 13-25 (including declarations, PwC human resources policy documents,

14 and statistical analyses showing a central uniform hiring policy which results in age disparities in

15 hiring). PwC’s arguments to the contrary would be better addressed to the second stage of the

16 proceedings.

17

The Court’s inquiry does not end there, however. In addition to a showing that “the putative

18 class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan,” Plaintiffs must

19 show at this stage that they are “generally comparable to those they seek to represent.” Villa v.

20 United Site Servs. of Cal., No. 5:12-CV-00318-LHK, 2012 WL 5503550, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Nov.

21 13, 2012). Plaintiffs seek to certify a collective of “all individuals aged 40 and older who, from

22 October 18, 2013 forward, applied or attempted to apply but were not hired for a full-time

23 Covered Position (Associate, Experienced Associate, and Senior Associate) in the Tax or

24 Assurance lines of service.” ECF No. 198 at 26-27. PwC argues that under Plaintiffs’ broad

25 proposed class, “unqualified applicants . . . are not similarly situated to Chapman and Rabin, who

26 allege they were qualified for the positions to which they applied,” and received an interview.

27

28 8

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 9 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 ECF No. 211 at 18.7 Plaintiffs do not dispute that their proposed collective includes unqualified

2 applicants.

3

As to this point, PwC’s arguments are more persuasive. The difference between Rabin and

4 Chapman on the one hand, and facially unqualified applicants on the other, prevents the Court

5 from conditionally certifying the class. “Although the standard for conditional certification at the

6 notice-stage is lenient, there is a standard.” Heath, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 850 (emphasis added). A

7 plaintiff “need not show that his position is or was identical to the putative class members’

8 positions; a class may be certified . . . if the named plaintiff can show that his position was or is

9 similar to those of the absent class members.” Labrie v. UPS Supply Chain Sols., Inc., No. C-08-

10 3182 PJH, 2009 WL 723599, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2009) (citing Edwards v. City of Long

11 Beach, 467 F. Supp. 2d 986, 990 (C.D. Cal. 2006)) (emphasis added). Chapman and Rabin cannot

12 make this showing, because they are not similarly situated to facially unqualified applicants.

13

PwC requires applicants to have a degree in a relevant field, have earned a minimum

14 undergraduate GPA, and, for Experienced and Senior Associate positions, relevant work

15 experience. ECF No. 198-7 at 1-41. PwC does an initial screen for basic qualifications, and only

16 interviews candidates who pass the initial screen. ECF No. 212-3 at 24-25. This initial screen

17 significantly narrows the pool of applicants. ECF No. 211 at 21. Chapman and Rabin were

18 facially qualified: they possessed a college degree in a relevant major, had attained the required

19 GPA, and had passed the CPA examination. ECF No. 198-8 at 61, 208. As such, they passed the

20 initial screen and received interviews. Id. Not only will the inquiry as to their claims be different

21 from the one as to unqualified applicants’ claims, but it is hard to imagine how unqualified

22 applicants could ever be part of the class, given that an ADEA plaintiff “must show, among other

23 things, that he was qualified for the position.” Heath, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 857.

24

This case is like Heath. In that case, the court considered a motion to conditionally certify an

25

26

7 PwC makes additional arguments against certification including: (1) that campus recruiting is lawful, ECF No. 211 at 10; (2) that many recruiters do not know applicants’ age when they reject

27

them, Id. at 24-25; and (3) that it is legal to conduct a generation focused workforce study, ECF No. 212-3 at 11. The Court declines to address these arguments because a discussion of the merits

28 is not appropriate at this stage. Heath, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 855.

9

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 10 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 age discrimination collective action against Google. Named plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes sought to

2 certify a class under the FLSA consisting of persons over 40 who interviewed in-person for certain

3 positions at Google. Id. at 853. The district court conditionally certified that class. Another

4 plaintiff, Robert Heath, sought to conditionally certify a different class consisting of “all

5 applicants” for certain specified jobs from 2010 to the present “who were 40 years of age or older

6 at the time of their application[,] and who were rejected for the position.” Id. at 855. For that

7 proposed class, there was no requirement that class members have been invited for an in-person

8 interview or passed any kind of screening. The district court declined to certify that class because

9 although Heath was facially qualified, the “proposed class would include an unknown number of

10 applicants who demonstrate no plausible qualifications for the job.” Id.; see also Trinh v. JP

11 Morgan Chase & Co., No. 07-CV-1666, 2008 WL 1860161 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 22, 2008) (declining

12 to certify collective for failure to show Plaintiffs were similarly situated to class members). The

13 court noted that “there are likely to be wide disparities in the class members’ qualifications and/or 14 experiences” such that certification was inappropriate. Heath, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 857-58.8

15

Similarly here, it is clear that facially unqualified applicants are included in Plaintiffs’

16 proposed class. “[Rabin’s] vast class would include every individual applicant over the age of 40

17 without regard to their qualifications, including, for example, a lawyer applying for [an

18 Experienced Associate].” Id. at 857. Because Plaintiffs Rabin and Chapman were facially

19 qualified when they applied, ECF No 198-8 at 61, 208, the Court concludes they are not

20 substantially similar to facially unqualified applicants.

21

Plaintiffs argue on reply that limiting the class to qualified applicants prevents them from

22 attacking discrimination in the initial screening process itself. ECF No. 218 at 19-20. They note

23 that PwC recruiters are permitted to exercise discretion in the application of the screening criteria,

24 such that “an offer can be extended to a candidate with any GPA,” and that while “[m]ajors should

25

26

8 The collective action the court declined to certify in Heath was narrower than Plaintiffs’ proposed collective. The plaintiff in that case sought to certify a collective of all rejected

27

applicants for particular positions within Google who were over 40. Heath, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 855. In addition to all rejected applicants over 40, the proposed class in this case includes deterred

28 non-applicants over 40. ECF No. 198 at 26-27.

10

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 11 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 be relevant to the specific [line of service] desired,” and that “[t]ypical majors are Accounting,

2 Finance, Business, and MIS/Computer Science,” no particular undergraduate major is actually

3 required. Id. (quoting Exs. 153, 154) (emphasis added by Plaintiffs). They allege that the

4 screening process itself is another mechanism by which PwC discriminates against older

5 applicants, given that pre-interview rejection rates are higher for older applicants than younger

6 ones. Id. at 19. While there may be merit to Plaintiffs’ claims about the screening process – a

7 question the Court does not decide – the fact remains that neither Rabin nor Chapman is typical of

8 a facially unqualified applicant. Plaintiffs must find another way to challenge discrimination in

9 the initial screen, either through its existing named plaintiffs – who were rejected at the initial

10 screening stage for some jobs, although they were facially qualified – or through a different named

11 plaintiff, if they wish to do so.9

12

Likewise, Rabin and Chapman are not similarly situated to potential class members who

13 were deterred from applying, because they did apply. ECF No. 212-3 at 28. In fact, Plaintiffs do

14 not identify any individual deterred from applying who was over forty. ECF No. 198-8 at 171

15 (declarant Salvador Maciel explaining he was deterred from applying just before his 40th birthday;

16 all other declarants applied). Other courts in this circuit have concluded that plaintiffs who

17 applied could not represent those deterred from applying in an ADEA collective certification case

18 because they were not similarly situated. Pines v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., No. SACV89-

19 631AHS(RWRX), 1992 WL 92398, at *12 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 1992).

20

In their reply brief and at the hearing on this motion, Plaintiffs attempted to recast “deterred”

21 applicants as those who actually applied, but were steered away from covered positions into

22 seasonal positions, and those who expressed interest in applying, but whom PwC steered away.

23 ECF No. 218 at 20; ECF No. 231 at 36 (arguing that plaintiff Rabin should be considered a

24 “deterred applicant” because “[a] recruiter reached out to him and steered him towards one of

25 these FTN roles as opposed to inviting him to a full-time covered position”). As an initial matter,

26

27

9 While Rabin and Chapman did not pass the initial screen or receive an interview for some applications, ECF No. 198-8 at 61, 208, they were facially qualified on each occasion they applied

28 because they possessed the requisite GPA, degree, and other qualifications.

11

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 12 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 this new definition is not consistent with either the complaint or the dictionary. The complaint

2 states that “PwC’s policies and practices have the effect of deterring prospective applicants ages

3 40 and older from applying and denying job opportunities to those individuals ages 40 and older

4 who do apply.” ECF No. 42 ¶ 11; see also id. ¶ 13 (same). And Merriam-Webster defines “deter”

5 to mean “to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting.” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate

6 Dictionary 340 (11th ed. 2012). More importantly, Rabin and Chapman are not similarly situated

7 to the class they seek to represent because they did in fact apply to covered positions. ECF No.

8 198-8 at 61, 208.10

9

Because Plaintiffs are not similarly situated to the class they seek to represent, the Court

10 denies the motion to certify the proposed collective. The Court will not attempt to narrow the

11 Plaintiffs’ proposed class to cure the defects the Court identifies in this order. Rather, the Court

12 denies the motion without prejudice so that Plaintiffs can propose a class to which they are

13 similarly situated, and Defendants can defend against that proposed class. See Rivera v. Saul

14 Chevrolet, Inc., No. 16-CV-05966-LHK, 2017 WL 3267540, at *11 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2017); see

15 also Heath, 215 F. Supp. 3d at 858 (rejecting Plaintiff’s request to narrow a class if the court

16 concluded Plaintiff was not substantially similar to that class because to “do so would improperly

17 prevent [Defendant] from identifying infirmities in such an alternative definition and deprive the

18 Court of sufficient evidence and argument on which to base such a determination”).

19 / / /

20

21 10 The Court need not address the merits at this stage but notes that little case law supports the

22

proposition that deterred applicants can maintain an ADEA collective action. Wynn v. Nat’l Broad. Co., 234 F. Supp. 2d 1067, 1102 (C.D. Cal. 2002) (dismissing without prejudice because

23

the court was “highly skeptical” of plaintiffs’ ability to plead an ADEA collective on the basis of deterred applicants but allowing plaintiffs to amend so individual applicants could attempt to plead

24

futility of applying); Pines, 1992 WL 92398, at *12 (declining to certify deterred applicants). But see Hyman v. First Union Corp., 982 F. Supp. 1, 8 (D.D.C. 1997) (concluding that an employee

25

who expressed interest in applying to a position but was told he was overqualified could be added to an ADEA collective action).

26 As Plaintiffs admit, “identifying some types of deterred applicants could [also] pose

27

ascertainability challenges.” ECF No. 218 at 20. Plaintiffs argue their class is ascertainable nonetheless because PwC maintains a list of potential applicants in its “Smashfly” database, which

28

tracks individuals interested in working at PwC. Id. at 21-22. But the Court need not address the question now because it concludes the class cannot be conditionally certified for other reasons.

12

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 236 Filed 07/26/18 Page 13 of 13

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion without prejudice. Plaintiffs may

3 file an amended motion for collective certification within thirty (30) days. Failure to cure the

4 deficiencies identified in this order or failure to file a subsequent motion within 30 days will result

5 in a denial with prejudice of conditional certification of FLSA collective action.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7 Dated: July 26, 2018 8 9

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 13

 
 Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 1 of 37

1 Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)
Laura Iris Mattes (Cal. Bar No. 310594)
2 OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

Daniel Kohrman (admitted pro hac vice) Laurie McCann (admitted pro hac vice) Dara Smith (admitted pro hac vice)

3

One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E. Street, N.W.

4

Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

5 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com
6

7

Adam T. Klein (admitted pro hac vice) Melissa L. Stewart (admitted pro hac vice)

Washington, D.C. 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 Facsimile: (202) 434-2082 E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org E-mail: lmccann@aarp.org E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org

8

Daniel S. Stromberg (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP

9 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor

New York, NY 10017
10 Telephone: (212) 245-1000

11

Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com

12

E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com E-mail: dstromberg@outtengolden.com

Lucy Brierly Bansal (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste 200W Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (646) 952-9114 E-mail: lbansal@outtengolden.com

13
Additional counsel on next page.
14

15 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

17

OAKLAND DIVISION

18
STEVE RABIN and JOHN CHAPMAN,
19 on behalf of themselves, and all others
similarly situated,
20
Plaintiffs,
21
v.
22
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,
23
Defendant.
24 25

Case No. 16-cv-02276-JST
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY SETTLEMENT APPROVAL ORDER
Judge: Jon S. Tigar Hearing Date: March 11, 2020 Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m. Courtroom: Courtroom 6, 2nd Floor

26

27

28
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 2 of 37

1 Jennifer L. Liu (Cal. Bar No. 279370)

THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
2 1170 Market Street, Suite 700

3

San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-4260

4

Facsimile: (415) 231-0011 E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 37

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 11, 2020, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the

3 matter may be heard, in Courtroom 6 – 2nd Floor of this Court’s Oakland Courthouse, located at

4 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California, Plaintiffs Steve Rabin and John Chapman, individually and

5 on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) will, and hereby do, move this Court for the

6 following relief with respect to the Collective and Class Action Settlement Agreement (the

7 “Settlement,” attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of Motion for

8 Preliminary Settlement Approval Order (“Sagafi Decl.”)) with Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers

9 LLP (“PwC”):

10

1. that the Court certify, for settlement purposes only, a settlement class pursuant to

11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);

12

2. that the Court approve prospective relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

13 23(b)(2);

14

3. that the Court appoint Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class;

15

4. that the Court appoint Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel;

16

5. that the Court grant preliminary approval of the Settlement;

17

6. that the Court approve mailing to the Class Members the proposed Class Notice;

18

7. that the Court appoint JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator;

19 and

20

8. that the Court schedule a hearing for final approval of the Settlement.

21

This Motion is made on the grounds that the Settlement is the product of arms-length,

22 good-faith negotiations; is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class; and should be preliminarily

23 approved, as discussed in the attached memorandum.

24

The Motion is based on: this notice; the following memorandum in support of the motion,

25 the Sagafi Decl. (which annexes a copy of the Settlement); the Court’s record of this action; all

26 matters of which the Court may take notice; and oral and documentary evidence presented at the

27 hearing on the motion. This motion is unopposed by PwC.

28

MOTION FOR

1

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 4 of 37

1 Dated: March 3, 2020 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi Jahan C. Sagafi
Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887) Laura Iris Mattes (Cal. Bar No. 310594) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com
Adam T. Klein (admitted pro hac vice) Melissa L. Stewart (admitted pro hac vice) Daniel Stromberg (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com E-mail: dstromberg@outtengolden.com
Lucy Brierly Bansal (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste 200W Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (646) 952-9114 E-mail: lbansal@outtengolden.com
Daniel Kohrman (admitted pro hac vice) Laurie McCann (admitted pro hac vice) Dara Smith (admitted pro hac vice) AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 Facsimile: (202) 434-2082 E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org E-mail: lmccann@aarp.org E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org

MOTION FOR

2

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 5 of 37

1

Jennifer L. Liu (Cal. Bar No. 279370)

2

THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C. 1170 Market Street, Suite 700

3

San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-4260

4

Facsimile: (415) 231-0011

E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com
5

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION FOR

3

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 6 of 37

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION .................................... - 1 -

3 I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. - 1 -

4 II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................... - 3 -

5

A. Factual and Procedural Background........................................................... - 3 -

6 III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ....................................................................... - 4 -

7

A. The Settlement Classes............................................................................... - 4 -

8

B. Settlement Overview .................................................................................. - 5 -

9

1. Monetary Relief............................................................................... - 5 -

10

2. Programmatic Relief........................................................................ - 8 -

11

C. Class Representative and Declarant Service Awards................................. - 9 -

12

D. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs ........................................................................ - 10 -

13

E. Settlement Administration Costs.............................................................. - 11 -

14 IV. ARGUMENT....................................................................................................... - 12 -

15

A. Certification of the Rule 23 Classes Is Proper ......................................... - 13 -

16

1. Rule 23(a) Is Satisfied ................................................................... - 13 -

17

2. Certification Is Proper Under Rule 23(b)(3) ................................. - 15 -

18

3. Rule 23(b)(2) is Satisfied .............................................................. - 16 -

19

4. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Be Appointed as Class Counsel ......... - 16 -

20

B. The Federal ADEA Collective Has Been Certified.................................. - 17 -

21

C. The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, And Adequate................................. - 17 -

22

1. Plaintiffs’ Case Faced Significant Hurdles on Liability, Class

23

Certification, And on Appeal ........................................................ - 18 -

24

2. The Settlement Amount is Appropriate ........................................ - 18 -

25

3. The Extent of Discovery Supports Settlement .............................. - 21 -

26

4. Counsel’s Experience And Views Support Approval ................... - 22 -

27

5. The Parties Participated in Arms-Length Negotiations Before Two Experienced Neutral Mediators ............................................ - 22 -

28

MOTION FOR

i

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 7 of 37

1 2 V. 3 VI. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

D. The Proposed Notice Is Clear And Adequate .......................................... - 23 A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED .................... - 23 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... - 24 -

MOTION FOR

ii

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 8 of 37

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Cases

Page(s)

3 Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Associates,
731 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013)....................................................................................................... 13
4
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor,
5 521 U.S. 591 (1997) .............................................................................................................. 14, 15

6 Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 7 568 U.S. 455 (2013) .................................................................................................................... 15
8 Aquino v. CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc.,
No. 5:14-cv-01795-VAP-(DTBx) (C.D. Cal.) .............................................................................. 8
9
Astarita v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.,
10 No. 4:15-cv-00095-GAF (W.D. Mo.) ........................................................................................... 7

11 Bates v. United Parcel Serv., 12 204 F.R.D. 440 (N.D. Cal. 2001) ................................................................................................ 16

13

Berndt v. California Dep’t of Corrections, No. 03–cv–3174–PJH, 2012 WL 950625 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012)........................................... 18

14
Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing, Inc.,

15 No. 14–cv–01788–JST, 2016 WL 344532 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016) ................................... 17-18

16 Blocher, et al. v. Landry’s Inc., 17 No. 8:14-cv-3213-T-35JSS (M.D. Fl.)....................................................................................... 7-8

18

Buccellato v. AT&T Operations, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 00465, 2011 WL 3348055 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2011)............................................. 10

19 Calibuso v. Bank of Am. Corp., 20 299 F.R.D. 359 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ................................................................................................ 20

21 Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. RLJ Lodging Tr.,

22 No. 15–cv–0224–YGR, 2016 WL 314400 (N.D. Cal. 2016)...................................................... 16

23

Coates v. Farmers Grp., Inc., No. 15 Civ, 01913, 2016 WL 5791413 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) ............................................ 10

24 Cotter v. Lyft, Inc.,

25 176 F. Supp. 3d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2016) ........................................................................................ 19

26 Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., 27 No. 06-cv-3903-TEH, 2008 WL 4667090 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2008)......................................... 16

28

MOTION FOR

iii

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 9 of 37

1 del Toro Lopez v. Uber Techs., Inc.,

2 No. 17-cv-06255-YGR, 2018 WL 5982506 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018)........................... 6, 12, 14

3

Delagarza v. Tesoro Ref. & Mktg. Co., No. 09–cv–5803–EMC, 2011 WL 4017967 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2011) ...................................... 15

4 Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp.,

5 285 F.R.D. 492 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ................................................................................................ 15

6 Fernandez v. Victoria Secret Stores, LLC, 7 No. 06 Civ. 04149, 2008 WL 8150856 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2008).............................................. 22

8

Galeener v. Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc., No. 13-CV-04960-VC, 2015 WL 12976106 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) ...................................... 9

9 Garcia v. Johnson, 10 No. 14–cv–01775–YGR, 2015 WL 13387594 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015).................................. 16

11 Garcia v. Johnson,

No. 14–cv–01775–YGR, 2015 WL 13439762 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015)................................. 16
12

13

Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 06 Civ. 4068, 2007 WL 221862 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007).................................................. 10

14 Gonzalez v. Abercrombie, 15 No. 03–cv–02817–SI, ECF No. 125 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2005) ................................................. 20

16 Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,
150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998)................................................................................... 12, 13, 14, 17
17
Heath v. Google LLC,
18 No. 15–cv–01824–BLF, 2019 WL 3842075 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019).............................. 12, 20
19 Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley & Co., 20 No. 06–cv–3903–TEH, 2008 WL 346417 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2008) .......................................... 14
21 Jarrett, et al. v. GGNSC Holdings L.L.C.,
No. 12-cv-4105-BP (W.D. Mo.) ................................................................................................... 8
22
Kleber v. CareFusion Corp.,
23 914 F.3d 480 (7th Cir.)............................................................................................................ 3, 18

24 Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co., 25 No. 08 Civ. 2670, ECF No. 315 (N.D. Cal Apr. 29, 2011)......................................................... 10

26

Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir. 1982)................................................................................................... 12

27
In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig.,

28 213 F.3d 454 (9th Cir. 2000)....................................................................................................... 21

MOTION FOR

iv

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 10 of 37

1 Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v. DirecTV, Inc.,

2 221 F.R.D. 523 (C.D. Cal. 2004) .......................................................................................... 12, 21

3

Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, No. 16-cv-02276, 2018 WL 3585143 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2018).................................................. 3

4 Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,

5 563 F.3d 948 (9th Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 17, 21

6 Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 7 944 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2019)................................................................................................ 2 , 17

8

Ross v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 07 Civ. 2951, 2010 WL 3833922 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010) .............................................. 10

9 Ruch v. AM Retail Grp., Inc., 10 No. 14–cv–05352–MEJ, 2016 WL 1161453 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016).................................... 17

11 Staton v. Boeing Co.,

327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003)......................................................................................................... 9
12

13

In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d 1078 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................................... 17

14 Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., 15 No. 05–cv–02520–TEH, 2006 WL 2535056 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006) ................................... 15

16 Tijero v. Aaron Bros., Inc.,
301 F.R.D. 314 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................................ 22
17
United States v. City of New York,
18 681 F. Supp. 2d 274 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)......................................................................................... 19
19 Vedachalam v. Tata Consultancy Servs., 20 No. 06-cv-0963, 2013 WL 3929129 (N.D. Cal. July 18, 2013).................................................. 10
21 Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
839 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2016)................................................................................................. 3, 18
22
Vinole v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
23 571 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2009)....................................................................................................... 15

24 Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 25 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002)..................................................................................................... 11

26

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) .................................................................................................................... 13

27
Walsh v. CorePower Yoga LLC,

28 No. 16–cv–05610–MEJ, 2017 WL 589199 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) ...................................... 14

MOTION FOR

v

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 11 of 37

1 Walters v. Reno,

2 145 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................... 16

3

Walton v. AT&T Corp., No. 15-cv-03653-VC, ECF No. 221 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018) ................................................... 9

4 Wellens v. Sankyo,

5 No. 13 Civ. 00581, 2016 WL 8115715 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016) ............................................. 10

6 Whiteway v. FedEx Kinko’s Office and Print Servs.,

7 No. 05–cv–2320–SBA, 2006 WL 2642528 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006) ............................... 13, 15

8

Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. 06–cv–05778–JCS, 2011 WL 1230826 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011) ....................................... 22

9 Rules
10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)........................................................................................................................ 13 11
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b).................................................................................................................. 14, 15
12
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c) ........................................................................................................................ 22
13 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)........................................................................................................................ 22 15 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)........................................................................................................................ 16

16 Other Authorities

17 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11:22 (4th ed. 2002) ................................................................ 12, 17

18 Manual for Complex Litigation §§ 21.632-634 (4th ed. 2004)....................................................... 12

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MOTION FOR

vi

PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 12 of 37

1

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF UNOPPOSED MOTION

2 I. INTRODUCTION

3

Plaintiffs Steve Rabin and John Chapman (“Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and the

4 proposed Class and Collective Members,1 and Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (“PwC”)

5 (collectively, the “parties”), have negotiated a Settlement of their age discrimination claims on 6 behalf of Older2 applicants who applied for and were not hired to work in a Covered Position3

7 (Associate, Experienced Associate, or Senior Associate in PwC’s Tax or Assurance lines of 8 service) during the Covered Period.4 Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of Motion for

9 Preliminary Settlement Approval Order (“Sagafi Decl.”) ¶ 27 Ex. A (Settlement Agreement).

10 This Settlement provides both (a) a common fund of $11,625,000 for the Class Members’ benefit

11 (including payment of administration costs, attorneys’ fees and costs, and service award

12 payments) and (b) programmatic relief covering various aspects of PwC’s employment practices,

13 to be maintained during a two-year implementation period, owned by PwC’s Chief Purpose &

14 Inclusion Officer working in concert with an external Implementation Expert. Specifically, PwC

15 has committed to implementing and enhancing important recruiting and hiring initiatives for the

16 benefit of older applicants, including: (1) hiring an industrial/organizational expert consultant

17 (the Implementation Expert) to advise on training on age inclusivity for leadership and employees

18 involved in recruiting and hiring as well as other aspects of training, recruiting Older workers,

19 and avoiding age bias in the process, (2) advertising job opportunities to Older workers, taking

20 Class Counsel’s recommendations into account, (3) for applicants who have graduated from

21 college, not to ask, pre-offer, for graduation date information or have eligibility limits based on

22 graduation year or age, (4) including age as one aspect of PwC’s non-discrimination policy in

23

24 1 For ease of reference, Class and Collective Members will be referred to collectively as “Class
Members.”

25

2 For ease of reference, “Older” means individuals aged 40 or older. 3 Unless otherwise specified herein, all capitalized terms have the meaning defined in the

26 Settlement Agreement, which is attached to the Declaration of Jahan C. Sagafi in Support of
Motion for Preliminary Settlement Approval Order (“Sagafi Decl.”) as Exhibit A.

27 4 October 18, 2013 to January 21, 2020 for Collective Action Plaintiffs and September 8, 2013 to
January 21, 2020 for the Rule 23 Classes.

28

- 1 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 13 of 37

1 official notifications of that policy,5 (5) permitting alumni to apply for on-campus openings of

2 Covered Positions, (6) making public and internal statements expressing PwC’s commitment to

3 diversity in hiring, including age-diverse photographs and avoiding text showing a lack of support

4 for age-diverse job applicants in its recruiting materials and Careers website, and issuing two joint

5 press releases announcing the settlement, (7) ensuring that the complaint procedure covers age

6 discrimination complaints and providing information to the Implementation Expert about age-

7 related complaints, (8) ownership of implementation by PwC’s Chief Purpose & Inclusion

8 Officer, who will meet with the Implementation Expert 6, 12, and 24 months after Finality, (9) a

9 reserve period of 15 months after Finality, during which Claimants who believe they suffered age

10 discrimination or retaliation in not being hired into a Covered Position during that 15-month

11 period can request additional compensation from a separate fund set aside from the Gross

12 Settlement Amount, and (10) continuing jurisdiction by the Court.

13

The proposed Settlement and this Motion readily satisfy the requirements of Rule 23, the

14 ADEA, Ninth Circuit precedent, and established Northern District practice, including the Class

15 Action Settlement Guidance. See, e.g., Roes, 1-2 v. SFBSC Mgmt., LLC, 944 F.3d 1035, 1060

16 (9th Cir. 2019). As an initial matter, the litigation has been intense. The parties have zealously

17 litigated the substantive and procedural issues presented by this case, including a determination of

18 whether the ADEA allows Plaintiffs to assert disparate impact hiring claims, whether the case can

19 be conditionally certified as a collective, and various discovery disputes. Discovery has been

20 extensive, including PwC’s production of 253,203 documents totaling 1,042,467 pages. The

21 parties have participated in months of settlement negotiations spread across the last year and a

22 half, supervised by two highly experienced mediators – Robert Meyer of JAMS, who has deep

23 experience litigating and mediating complex disputes including in the accounting industry

24 specifically, and David A. Rotman of Mediated Negotiations, who is one of the premier

25 employment discrimination class action mediators in the nation. As more fully discussed below,

26 Plaintiffs respectfully submit that this exceptional Settlement should be preliminarily approved,

27

28 5 PwC states that age is already included in PwC’s official non-discrimination policy.

- 2 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 14 of 37

1 such that Notice can issue to the Class Members to allow them to comment on the settlement, file

2 claim forms, and/or opt out, as they deem appropriate.

3 II. BACKGROUND

4

A. Factual and Procedural Background

5

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Steve Rabin filed the original complaint on behalf of a

6 nationwide ADEA collective and a California class. On September 8, 2016, John Chapman

7 joined as a plaintiff asserting Michigan class claims. Plaintiffs allege that PwC discriminated

8 against them and other Older applicants seeking positions in the Covered Positions in violation of

9 the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq. (“ADEA”),

10 the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 12900, et seq.(“FEHA”),

11 the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), and

12 the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2101, et seq. (“MCRA”).

13

In late 2016, PwC moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the ADEA does not

14 allow for disparate impact claims. ECF No. 55. The Court denied PwC’s motion, distinguishing

15 the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc decision in Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839 F.3d 958

16 (11th Cir. 2016). ECF No. 74. Later, the Seventh Circuit, also en banc, agreed with the Eleventh

17 Circuit. Kleber v. CareFusion Corp., 914 F.3d 480 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 306 (2019).

18

The parties engaged in substantial pre-conditional-certification discovery, with PwC

19 producing 1,042,467 pages of documents through an extensive ESI process. In addition, PwC

20 produced Class Member and comparator data, from which Plaintiffs made simple calculations of

21 age disparities in PwC’s hiring. Sagafi Decl. ¶ 20.

22

After initially denying Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification of a nationwide

23 ADEA collective, Rabin v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, No. 16-cv-02276, 2018 WL 3585143,

24 at *4 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2018), the Court granted Plaintiffs’ renewed motion on March 28, 2019,

25 ECF No. 270. Plaintiffs issued notice to approximately 17,000 potential collective members, and

26 3,456 individuals opted in. Sagafi Decl. ¶ 21.

27

On September 21, 2018, the parties attended their first full-day mediation, overseen by

28 Robert Meyer of JAMS. Id. ¶ 22. Although no settlement was reached, the parties continued to

- 3 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 15 of 37

1 negotiate for several months, eventually reaching a tentative agreement to detailed programmatic

2 relief terms. Id. ¶ 23. Then, this fall and winter, the parties began to litigate opt-in discovery

3 issues while, in parallel, holding a second round of settlement talks. Id. ¶ 24. On January 21,

4 2020, the parties attended a second full-day mediation with David A. Rotman, one of the

5 preeminent employment class action mediators in the country. Id. ¶ 25. At the close of

6 mediation, the parties reached an agreement on the total monetary amount of the Settlement, and

7 over the ensuing three weeks intensively negotiated a term sheet, which was signed on February

8 17, 2020. Id. ¶ 26. On March 2, 2020, the parties executed a long-form Settlement Agreement.

9 Id. ¶ 27.

10 III. THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

11

A. The Settlement Classes

12

For settlement purposes only, PwC agrees to certification of the following classes

13 (collectively, the “Settlement Class”), defined as:

14

(1) “California Class” means all applicants who, between September 8, 2013 and

15

January 21, 2020 (inclusive), (a) applied for and were denied a Covered Position in

16

California or (b) resided in California at the time they applied to a Covered Position and

17

were denied; and were aged 40 or older at the time of application. “Michigan Class”

18

means all applicants who, between September 8, 2013 and January 21, 2020 (inclusive),

19

(a) applied for and were denied a Covered Position in Michigan or (b) resided in Michigan

20

at the time they applied to a Covered Position and were denied; and were aged 40 or older

21

at the time of application.

22

(2) “Settlement Collective” means all the applicants (a) who applied to and were

23

denied Covered Positions on or after October 18, 2013, (b) who were aged 40 or older at

24

the time of application, and (c) who opted in to this Litigation pursuant to the federal Age

25

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.

26

(“ADEA”) on or before January 21, 2020.

27

28

- 4 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 16 of 37

1 Settlement Agreement §§ 1.3, 1.28, 1.43. The parties estimate that there are approximately 5,000

2 Settlement Class Members, including the 3,456 opt-ins.6

3

B. Settlement Overview

4

The Settlement provides two important forms of relief for the Class Members: (1) a non-

5 reversionary common fund of $11,625,000 to compensate for financial and emotional harm of

6 Class Members who choose to file claim forms (“Claimants”) and (2) programmatic relief

7 whereby PwC commits to enhance its recruiting and hiring processes for Older workers who may

8 wish to apply to the Covered Positions in the future.

9

1. Monetary Relief

10

The $11,625,000 Settlement Amount will cover: (a) payments to Claimants, including all

11 applicable taxes; (b) Service Awards of $20,000 for each of the two Plaintiffs, plus $2,000 for

12 each of the 28 declarants7 who agree to sign general releases (for a total of up to $96,000); (c)

13 Class Counsel’s fees up to 40% of the Gross Settlement Amount and actual litigation costs and

14 expenses up to $295,000; (d) settlement administration costs, not to exceed $105,330 absent

15 unforeseen circumstances and Court approval, (e) the costs of the Implementation Expert up to

16 $20,000, and (f) a $300,000 reserve fund to compensate Claimants for any alleged and valid age

17 discrimination claims based on PwC’s failure to hire them into a Covered Position to which they

18 apply during the 15-month window following Finality.8 Settlement Agreement §§ 1.31, 4.2.

19

20

21 6 While the parties know that there are 3,456 individuals who opted into the litigation, they cannot

22

yet know how many absent California and Michigan class members there are, because those class periods extend beyond the period for which the parties have run the date of birth search process

23

using Accurint and Transunion, see ECF No. 130. If the Settlement is preliminarily approved, PwC will provide data to the vendor JND to collect date of birth information to determine how

24

many applicants were Older and therefore Class Members. 7 The 28 individuals, each of whom submitted a sworn declaration in support of Plaintiffs’

25

motions for collective action certification, are Bon Joon Ahn, Nii-Ama Akuete, James Boyd Bankston, Brian Barnhart, Harry Brown III, Lori Cairns, Dickran Guerguerian, Brian Griffith,

26

Birgit Halliday, Sonya Hearn, James Huffman, Barry Iio, Heather Jackson, Charles Kelly, Kelli King, Sherene Lane-Pryce, Salvador Maciel, Michael Narey, Karl Painter, Ralph Penso, Lynette

27

Rhodes, Girma Tiruneh, Darryl Tolliver, Harry Treinen, Daniela Wells, Cynthia Woolbright, Jocelyn Wooten, and William Zatek.

8 This “not-to-exceed” cost is consistent with similar work performed by settlement
28 administrators on similar matters. See Sagafi Decl. ¶ 33.

- 5 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 17 of 37

1

The plan of allocation takes care to allocate money roughly according to Plaintiffs’

2 Counsel’s assessment of the strength of each Claimant’s litigation position, based on a reasonable

3 number of variables derived from data produced by PwC and input from the Claimants

4 themselves, and evaluated by the Settlement Administrator. Plaintiffs believe that this approach

5 will ensure that Claimants receive an appropriate share of the Net Settlement Fund. PwC does

6 not endorse the plan of allocation or make any judgment regarding a Claimant’s appropriate

7 share. Specifically, Claimants’ awards will be determined using a point system designed by

8 Plaintiffs’ Counsel that balances precision, fairness, and administrability using the following

9 variables: (1) whether they are a California/Michigan opt-in class member (2 points), an opt-in

10 non-class member (i.e., an opt-in from a different state) (1.5 points), or a California/Michigan

11 non-opt-in (i.e., a class member but not an opt-in),9 (2) a general assessment of the strength of any

12 individual’s argument that they were qualified to work at PwC (10x points for those selected by

13 PwC to interview for a Covered Position; and, for the rest, 0x, 1x, 2x, or 3x, as determined by the

14 Settlement Administrator based on basic information provided by the Claimants in their Claim

15 Forms regarding educational background (college, college major, college GPA, graduate school,

16 graduate school GPA) and professional background (whether they had a CPA and their relevant

17 work experience at the time of their last application to a Covered Position)). The Settlement

18 Administrator,10 in consultation with Class Counsel, will score each Claim Form. Claimants who

19
9 This approach recognizes that (a) opt-ins are already before the Court (by virtue of the Court’s
20 conditional collective action certification), whereas California and Michigan non-opt-ins would
not be able to recover money in the lawsuit absent Rule 23(b)(3) certification, (b) ADEA claims
21 provide for liquidated damages, and (c) state law claims add value to the ADEA claims (in the
form of greater relief, such as punitive damages and/or emotional distress damages, as well as
22 more settled law enshrining the disparate impact standard).
10 The parties have selected JND Legal Administration as the Settlement Administrator after a
23 competitive bidding process. See Sagafi Decl. ¶ 28. JND has performed excellently for
Plaintiffs’ counsel several times recently, including in administering the similarly complicated
24 claims process in the Uber race and gender discrimination class action settlement before Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2018 (for which the court approved a higher administration fee of
25 $110,000 for approximately 458 class members). del Toro Lopez v. Uber Techs., Inc., No. 17-cv-
06255-YGR, 2018 WL 5982506, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2018); see Sagafi Decl. ¶¶ 29 - 31
26 (listing cases JND has worked on with Plaintiffs’ counsel in the past two years, including Uber).
Plaintiffs’ counsel is confident that JND’s familiarity with the class data (because of their
27 administration of the collective action certification notice process in this case) will streamline the
administration and avoid unnecessary delays or overages. Sagafi Decl. ¶ 32.
28

- 6 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 18 of 37

1 receive zero points (because of a 0x multiplier, because their background suggests they would

2 have had a relatively weaker claim in litigation) will receive a Default Award of $200.

3

Any remainder not claimed will either be redistributed to Claimants pro rata or given as a

4 cy pres donation to Experience Works, Inc., a nationwide nonprofit dedicated to helping people

5 age with dignity and purpose and improve quality of life through training, community service,

6 and employment.11

7

Claim Forms can be submitted online or by email, mail, or fax. Consistent with modern

8 best practices, the Settlement Administrator will maintain a website providing the Notice, Claim

9 Form, information about deadlines and other relevant dates, key pleadings and orders, frequently

10 asked questions, and Class Counsel’s contact information.

11

The release is appropriately tailored to claims based on the factual allegations in the

12 operative complaint (the “Released Claims”). Settlement Agreement § 12. The Named Plaintiffs

13 and any Declarants who would like to receive a Service Award will also execute a general release

14 of all claims in exchange for their Service Award payments.

15

Notice will be sent by U.S. mail and email. Additionally, the Settlement Administrator

16 and Class Counsel are authorized and intend to engage in supplemental efforts to ensure that

17 Class Members receive and understand the Notice. Reminder emails will be sent halfway through

18 the Claims Period to anyone who has not submitted a Claim Form or opted out. Id. § 9.2.3. Class

19 Members will have 60 days to object, opt out, and/or submit a Claim Form.

20

After consulting with the proposed Settlement Administrator about its experience, and

21 based on their communications with the Settlement Collective members to date, Plaintiffs

22 estimate that approximately 50% of the Class Members will return Claim Forms. See, e.g.,

23 Astarita v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc., No. 4:15-cv-00095-GAF (W.D. Mo.) (1,801/3,563 Class

24 Members filed claims (50.5%)); Blocher, et al. v. Landry’s Inc., No. 8:14-cv-3213-T-35JSS

25

26 11 Experience Works administers part of the Senior Community Service Employment Program,

27

which is a community service and work-based job training program for older adults that serves as a bridge to securing unsubsidized jobs with local employers. See

28

https://www.experienceworks.org/. The parties have no connection to Experience Works. Sagafi Decl. ¶ 33.

- 7 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 19 of 37

1 (M.D. Fl.) (770/2,437 = 31.6%); Aquino v. CEVA Logistics U.S. Inc., No. 5:14-cv-01795-VAP

2 (DTBx) (C.D. Cal.) (299/1,856 =16.1%); Jarrett, et al. v. GGNSC Holdings L.L.C., No. 12:4105-

3 CV-C-BP (W.D. Mo. (2,672/6,119 = 43.7%); see also Sagafi Decl. ¶ 35.

4

2. Programmatic Relief

5

Perhaps more importantly, PwC agrees to programmatic relief for a period of two years.

6 Settlement Agreement § 3. The key features of the programmatic relief provided for in the

7 Settlement Agreement include:

8

Implementation Expert. The parties will select a neutral Implementation Expert with

9

industrial/organizational expertise to act as PwC’s consultant to advise on (1) training on age inclusivity and overcoming age bias (including implicit bias) for leadership,

10

employees in the Talent Acquisition group, and personnel who interview candidates and

make hiring decisions for Covered Positions, (2) including an age component in annual

11

compliance training, (3) ideas for recruiting Older workers for Covered Positions, and (4)

12

ideas for avoiding age discriminatory impact in job posting procedures, screening and decisionmaking criteria, and interview questions.

13

The Implementation Expert consultant will meet with PwC’s Chief Purpose & Inclusion

14

Officer 6, 12, and 24 months after Finality to discuss implementation. At least a month

before each meeting, PwC’s Chief Purpose & Inclusion Officer will provide a status

15

update as to each area covered by the Settlement. The Implementation Expert will present

16

questions and suggestions to PwC regarding implementation.

17

Postings. PwC shall advertise directly to older populations of potential job applicants.

As part of this initiative, PwC will consider recommendations from Class Counsel.

18

19

No use of graduation date. PwC agrees, for Covered Positions, not to ask pre-offer applicants who have graduated for their graduation date, and not have eligibility limits

20

based on graduation year (except where the graduation date is in the future) or age.

21

Non-discrimination policy. PwC shall include age as one aspect of PwC’s non-

discrimination policy in official notifications of that policy.

22

23

Alumni access to on-campus postings. PwC shall permit graduates of a school to apply to Covered Positions at that school, and alert those schools at which PwC actively recruits

24

that such campus-track positions are open to alumni.

25

Age discrimination complaint procedure. PwC’s complaint procedure shall cover

complaints of age discrimination. PwC will provide the Implementation Expert a

26

summary of the substance of post-Finality age-related complaints by applicants to

27

Covered Positions, without identifying any individual applicant, and the outcome of each such complaint.

28

- 8 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 20 of 37

1

Two-year implementation period. These programmatic changes will be implemented

2

over the course of two years post Finality. Separately, on the first two anniversaries post Finality, PwC’s Chief Purpose & Inclusion Officer will send Class Counsel a letter

3

confirming compliance with the settlement terms.

4

Reserve period compensation. In addition, a reserve fund of $300,000 will be set aside

from the Gross Settlement Fund to compensate Claimants who, during the 15-month

5

period after Finality, submit evidence that they applied to a Covered Position and were not

6

hired due to age discrimination or retaliation (“Reserve Fund Petitioners”).12 To the extent a residue remains from the reserve fund, it will be paid out in the same manner as

7

any residue from the Net Settlement Fund.

8

Continuing jurisdiction. The Court has continuing jurisdiction during the two-year

implementation period.

9
C. Class Representative and Declarant Service Awards13

10
The Settlement provides that Plaintiffs Rabin and Chapman will receive Service Award

11
payments of $20,000 each, and that the 28 Declarants (if they agree to general releases) will each

12
receive Service Award payments of $2,000. Settlement Agreement § 6. These amounts will be

13
separate and apart from any other recovery to which they will be entitled under the Settlement as

14
Class Members. Id. at § 6.3. These payments are intended to compensate them for (a) the

15
significant time and effort that Plaintiffs and Declarants have spent on behalf of the Class with the

16
prosecution of the claims, (b) the resulting value they have conferred to Class Members, and

17
(c) the exposure and risk they incurred by taking a leadership role in a lawsuit that has garnered

18
broad media coverage, along with the risk of retaliation in the employment marketplace by

19
employers that do not wish to employ someone associated with a class action. See, e.g., Staton v.

20
Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 976 (9th Cir. 2003) (confirming that non-plaintiffs can receive

21
incentive awards under appropriate conditions); Walton v. AT&T Corp., 15-cv-03653-VC, ECF

22
No. 221 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2018) (Chhabria, J.) (awarding $5,000 each to seven class member

23
witnesses); Galeener v. Source Refrigeration & HVAC, Inc., No. 13-CV-04960-VC, 2015 WL

24
12976106, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) ($27,000 and $25,000 to two class representatives);

25

26
12 Reserve Fund Petitioners will receive $0-10,000 based on the same factors used in the main
27 Claim process, supplemented by any additional showing they wish to make.
13 This section and the next section preview, at a general level, the more detailed factual and legal
28 presentation Plaintiffs will provide in their Fee Petition to be filed during the Claims period.

- 9 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 21 of 37

1 Vedachalam v. Tata Consultancy Servs., No. 06-cv-0963, 2013 WL 3929129, at *2 (N.D. Cal.

2 July 18, 2013) (Wilken, J.) (awarding $1,000 to each testifying declarant); Buccellato v. AT&T

3 Operations, Inc., No. 10 Civ. 00465, 2011 WL 3348055, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2011) (Koh, J.)

4 ($20,000 to lead plaintiff); Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co., No. 08 Civ. 2670, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Cal Apr.

5 29, 2011), ECF No. 315 (Wilken, J.) ($22,000 and $20,000 for named plaintiffs); Ross v. U.S. Bank

6 Nat’l Ass’n, No. 07 Civ. 2951, 2010 WL 3833922, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 29, 2010) (Illston, J.)

7 ($20,000 service award for each of four class representatives); Glass v. UBS Fin. Servs., Inc., No. 06

8 Civ. 4068, 2007 WL 221862, at *16-17 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2007) (Chesney, J.) ($25,000 to each of

9 four class representatives); see also Coates v. Farmers Grp., Inc., No. 15 Civ, 01913, 2016 WL

10 5791413, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 30, 2016) (Koh, J.) ($5,000 each to two opt-in class members who

11 participated in the litigation); Wellens v. Sankyo, No. 13 Civ. 00581, 2016 WL 8115715, at *3 (N.D.

12 Cal. Feb. 11, 2016) (Orrick, J.) ($1,000 to $6,000 for opt-in witness class members who provided

13 declarations or were deposed).

14

D. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

15

The Settlement Agreement allows Plaintiffs’ Counsel to request attorneys’ fees up to 40%

16 of the settlement fund and reimbursement of actual out-of-pocket costs up to $295,000.

17 Settlement Agreement §§ 5.1-5.4. Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s lodestar in this hotly contested litigation

18 is already over $6,488,000, with more work to be performed to (1) secure preliminary approval,

19 (2) oversee implementation of notice and respond to Class Member inquiries during the notice

20 period, (3) assist the Settlement Administrator in evaluation of the Claim Forms, (4) brief and

21 argue final approval, and (5) particularly importantly, provide PwC with recommendations

22 regarding advertising to Older workers and manage the reserve fund claims process until

23 approximately 2022. Plaintiffs intend to request a 35% fee, or $4,068,750, which equates to a

24 “negative” lodestar multiplier of 0.63x, which will gradually decrease during the coming months

25 and years while Plaintiffs’ Counsel continue to work for the Class Members’ benefit. Plaintiffs

26 expect the ultimate lodestar multiplier, after all work is done (around the end of 2022), to be

27 approximately 0.60x (or lower), if the Court awards a 35% fee. Looked at another way, once the

28 value of the programmatic relief is included on top of the monetary relief (see § IV.C.2., below),

- 10 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 22 of 37

1 Plaintiffs believe that a more realistic assessment of the Settlement value is $16,625,000; the

2 $4,068,750 fee is 24.5% of that amount.

3

Plaintiffs’ counsel have performed substantial work to earn this fee. During the past four

4 years of investigation and litigation, Plaintiffs’ Counsel (a) defeated a Motion for Judgment on

5 the Pleadings, ECF No. 55, and an interlocutory appeal of the ruling, ECF No. 84, (b) conducted

6 extensive discovery, including intensively negotiating a robust ESI process and reviewing a

7 production of over 253,000 documents, (c) worked closely with expert consultants to carefully

8 analyze PwC’s application data and public date of birth data, (d) conducted extensive legal and

9 factual research of the claims at issue, (e) engaged in vigorous and hotly-contested motion

10 practice including two collective action certification motions, (f) zealously represented Plaintiffs

11 during two mediations and intense post-mediation settlement discussions, and (g) otherwise

12 aggressively pursued the case to achieve an excellent result for Class Members.

13

A 35% fee is consistent with the Ninth Circuit’s and this District’s fee jurisprudence,

14 whereby fee awards in “megafund” settlements of $50-200 million are based on a benchmark of

15 25%, which is adjusted downward for settlements over $200 million and upward for settlements

16 below $50 million, as well as being cross-checked for reasonableness using Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

17 lodestar. Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 290 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2002) (affirming 28% fee in

18 $96.885 million settlement, describing “increase-decrease” rule to adjust benchmark up or down,

19 and holding that size of fund and lodestar cross-check are among factors to be considered in

20 setting fee rate). Plaintiffs’ Counsel will submit their fee and cost request, along with the request

21 for service payments, ten business days before the objection deadline, to allow Class Members an

22 opportunity to object or otherwise comment on these aspects of the Settlement. Settlement

23 Agreement § 5.1.

24

E. Settlement Administration Costs

25

The Settlement Administrator has agreed to perform all administration work set forth in

26 the Settlement Agreement for a maximum payment of $105,330 (barring unforeseen

27 circumstances, in which case the Settlement Administrator may request Court approval for an

28 additional amount on a showing of good cause). The Settlement Administrator’s maximum fee

- 11 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 23 of 37

1 amounts to just 0.9% of the total fund, which is reasonable in light of the amount and complexity

2 of the work to be performed (especially processing the Claim Forms, which will require careful

3 manual review), and is in line with settlement administration fees in comparable cases. See, e.g.,

4 Uber, 2018 WL 5982506, at *14 ($110,000 administration fee, equal to 1% of $10 million

5 settlement).

6 IV. ARGUMENT

7

Settlement approval “involves a two-step process in which the Court first determines

8 whether a proposed class action settlement deserves preliminary approval and then, after notice is

9 given to class members, whether final approval is warranted.” Nat’l Rural Telecomm. Coop. v.

10 DirecTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 525 (C.D. Cal. 2004); see also Manual for Complex Litigation §§

11 21.632-634 (4th ed. 2004). Preliminary approval requires two elements: First, the court must

12 determine that the settlement class meets the requirements for class certification if it has not yet

13 been certified (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)); and second, the court must determine that the

14 settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2)). Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp.,

15 150 F.3d 1011, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 1998).

16

Although the Ninth Circuit has not addressed the criteria courts should use to determine

17 whether to approve an ADEA settlement, district courts in the Ninth Circuit have relied on the

18 Eleventh Circuit’s decision in Lynn’s Food Stores, Inc. v. United States, 679 F.2d 1350 (11th Cir.

19 1982), which requires the Court to determine whether “the settlement represents a fair and

20 reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute.” Heath v. Google LLC, No. 15–cv–01824–BLF,

21 2019 WL 3842075, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2019) (approving ADEA settlement) (citing Lynn’s

22 Food Stores, 679 F.2d at 1355).

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 24 of 37

1

A. Certification of the Rule 23 Classes Is Proper.

2

For settlement purposes, the parties agree to certification of the class.14 “The validity of

3 use of a temporary settlement class is not usually questioned.” Alba Conte & Herbert B.

4 Newberg, 4 Newberg on Class Actions § 11:22 (4th ed. 2002).

5

The relevant factors also weigh in favor of certification.

6

1. Rule 23(a) Is Satisfied.

7

First, numerosity is met because joinder of Class Members would be impractical. Fed. R.

8 Civ. P. 23(a)(1). The Class of thousands of individuals readily meets this standard.

9

Second, commonality is met because “there are questions of law or fact common to the

10 class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2). In examining the commonality factor, the Supreme Court has

11 stated that the focus is on whether there are common issues of fact among class members and

12 whether class treatment will “generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of

13 the litigation.” Abdullah v. U.S. Sec. Associates, 731 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2013) (citing Wal-

14 Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011)). Here, there are numerous common

15 questions, such as whether PwC’s policies and practices discriminate against Class Members,

16 whether they violate the ADEA, the UCL, FEHA, and MCRA, whether PwC’s recruitment and

17 hiring systems are discriminatory, and what remedies are warranted.

18

Third, typicality is satisfied. Rule 23 typicality requires a finding that the “claims or

19 defenses of the representative parties [be] typical of the claims or defenses of the class.” Fed. R.

20 Civ. P. 23(a)(3). Typicality “focuses on the similarity between the lead plaintiff’s legal theories

21 and those of the people he or she purports to represent.” Whiteway v. FedEx Kinko’s Office and

22 Print Servs., No. 05–cv–2320–SBA, 2006 WL 2642528, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2006);

23
14 The Rule 23 Classes proposed in the Settlement Agreement are substantially the same as those

24 proposed in the First Amended Complaint, ECF No. 42, with the following differences: (1) the

25

Rule 23 Classes include only qualified applicants, consistent with the Court’s Order denying conditional certification of an ADEA collective including unqualified applicants (ECF No. 103);

26

(2) the Rule 23 Class period reaches back three years from the date of the operative Complaint, to September 8, 2013 for all claims, by agreement of the Parties; (3) the Rule 23 Classes no longer

27 include “deterred applicants,” in recognition of the difficulty of identifying individuals who did

not act on their desire to apply to PwC. The certified ADEA collective is unchanged in the

28 Settlement Agreement.

- 13 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 25 of 37

1 Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020. Here, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical because they challenge the same

2 policies and practices as the Class Members’ claims.

3

Fourth, Plaintiffs have fairly and adequately protected the interests of the class and will

4 continue to do so. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). The adequacy requirement is met where the class

5 representative: (1) has common, and not antagonistic, interests with unnamed class members, and

6 (2) will vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified counsel. Amchem Prods.,

7 Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625 (1997); Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020.

8

Here, Plaintiffs, like the Class Members they seek to represent, share an interest in

9 vigorous prosecution of the claims and in seeing PwC improve its recruitment and hiring

10 practices. Plaintiffs Rabin and Chapman are adequate representatives of the California and

11 Michigan classes, respectively, because they allege that they applied to and were denied

12 employment with PwC in a Covered Position, at the age of 40 or older, despite being qualified,

13 while residents of their respective states or in applying to a position based on those states. Both

14 Rabin and Chapman have been dedicated to aggressively prosecuting those claims. The interests

15 of Plaintiffs and Class Members in seeking compensation for and overhaul of PwC’s recruitment

16 and hiring practices are the same.

17

In addition, Plaintiffs are represented by adequate counsel. Class Counsel are highly

18 experienced in prosecuting employment discrimination class actions. As detailed further in the

19 Sagafi Decl., Class Counsel specialize in representing employees in complex employment class

20 actions, with a track record of obtaining superior results for their clients. See, e.g., Uber, 2018

21 WL 5982506 at *4 (appointing Outten & Golden as class counsel in $10,000,000 race and gender

22 discrimination settlement); Walsh v. CorePower Yoga LLC, No. 16–cv–05610–MEJ, 2017 WL

23 589199, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2017) (“Plaintiff’s counsel have a proven track record in the

24 prosecution of class actions as they have successfully litigated and tried many major class action

25 cases.”); Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley & Co., No. 06–cv–3903–TEH, 2008 WL 346417, at *8 (N.D.

26 Cal. Feb. 7, 2008) (Class Counsel have “extensive experience and expertise in prosecuting

27 employment discrimination class action cases”); see also Sagafi Decl. ¶ 5 (collecting cases).

28

For these reasons, Class Counsel satisfy the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(a).

- 14 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 26 of 37

1

2. Certification Is Proper Under Rule 23(b)(3).

2

Rule 23(b)(3) requires that common questions “predominate over any questions affecting

3 only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly

4 and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Both of these

5 requirements are met here.

6

The proposed Rule 23 Class is sufficiently cohesive to satisfy predominance. Amchem,

7 521 U.S. at 623. Predominance does not require “that each element of [a plaintiff’s] claim [is]

8 susceptible to classwide proof.” Amgen Inc. v. Conn. Ret. Plans & Tr. Funds, 568 U.S. 455, 469

9 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Common questions may predominate

10 “even though certain class members’ circumstances var[y] and some of the defendant’s practices

11 would have to be proven by anecdotal testimony.” Delagarza v. Tesoro Ref. & Mktg. Co., No.

12 09–cv–5803–EMC, 2011 WL 4017967, at *12 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 2011). Here, common issues

13 predominate because Plaintiffs and the Class Members applied to one of three positions

14 (Associate, Experienced Associate, Senior Associate) in PwC’s Tax or Assurance lines of service

15 and were subject to common policies and practices regarding recruitment and hiring. See Vinole

16 v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 571 F.3d 935, 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing cases) (focusing on

17 “centralized control in the form of standardized hierarchy” and “standardized corporate policies

18 and procedures governing employees”); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 285 F.R.D. 492, 538

19 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (Chen, J.) (noting nationwide system and “specific employment practices that

20 have caused a disparity”). Superiority rests on factors like individual class members’ desire to

21 bring individual actions and the utility of concentrating the litigation in one forum. Fed. R. Civ.

22 P. 23(b)(3). Here, “there is no indication, that class members seek to individually control their

23 cases, that individual litigation is already pending in other forums, or that this particular forum is

24 undesirable for any reason.” Tierno v. Rite Aid Corp., No. 05–cv–02520–TEH, 2006 WL

25 2535056, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2006); Amchem, 521 U.S. at 615. The Class Members

26 likely lack the resources and certainly lack the incentives to secure experienced, qualified

27 counsel, or to see litigation through to completion on their own. It is generally not rational to

28 invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in expert and other costs plus scores or hundreds of hours

- 15 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 27 of 37

1 of time and the stress inherent in litigation for a chance to possibly recover money against a

2 powerful corporation. In addition, hundreds of individual lawsuits would be wasteful and

3 inefficient. See, e.g., Whiteway, 2006 WL 2642528, at *11. Because the class mechanism will

4 achieve economies of scale for Class Members, conserve judicial resources, and preserve public

5 confidence in the system by avoiding repetitive proceedings and preventing inconsistent

6 adjudications, superiority is met.

7

3. Rule 23(b)(2) is Satisfied.

8

Under Rule 23(b)(2) class certification, “it is sufficient if class members complain of a

9 pattern or practice that is generally applicable to the class,” even if not all class members have

10 been injured by the challenged practice. Walters v. Reno, 145 F.3d 1032, 1047 (9th Cir. 1998);

11 Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr. v. RLJ Lodging Tr., No. 15–cv–0224–YGR, 2016 WL 314400, at

12 *9 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Rule 23(b)(2) settlement class certified); Garcia v. Johnson, No. 14–cv–

13 01775–YGR, 2015 WL 13439762, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 20, 2015) (same); Bates v. United

14 Parcel Serv., 204 F.R.D. 440, 447–48 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (Henderson, J.).

15

Here, Plaintiffs seek classic 23(b)(2) injunctive relief to modify PwC’s recruitment and

16 hiring practices and eradicate discrimination. See Civil Rights Educ. & Enf’t Ctr , 2016 WL

17 314400, at * 9 (“The Supreme Court in Wal-Mart recognized that [c]ivil rights cases against

18 parties charged with unlawful, class-based discrimination are prime examples’ of what (b)(2) is

19 meant to capture.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Garcia v. Johnson, No. 14–cv–01775–

20 YGR, 2015 WL 13387594, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2015) (approving prospective relief

21 including defendant modifying practices, producing periodic implementation reports to class

22 counsel and incorporating changes into training guides for employees); Curtis-Bauer v. Morgan

23 Stanley & Co., 2008 WL 4667090, at *5 (programmatic relief disparate impact case approved).

24

4. Plaintiffs’ Counsel Should Be Appointed as Class Counsel.

25

Adequacy of class counsel depends on (1) work performed on the matter, (2) experience,

26 (3) knowledge of the law, and (4) resources counsel can commit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1)(A).

27 Class Counsel readily satisfy these criteria, as set forth above. Supra, § IV.A.1; see also Sagafi

28 Decl. ¶¶ 4-16, 36-37.

- 16 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 28 of 37

1

B. The Federal ADEA Collective Has Been Certified.

2

The Court conditionally certified the ADEA collective on April 5, 2019. ECF No. 274. A

3 total of 3,456 individuals opted in after certifying that they applied for Covered Positions within

4 the Covered Period and met the minimum qualifications for the positions to which they applied.

5

C. The Settlement Is Fair, Reasonable, And Adequate.

6

Once the Court has found class and collective certification proper, the next step of the

7 preliminary approval process is to assess whether the settlement is “fundamentally fair, adequate,

8 and reasonable.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1026. Typically, the first-stage analysis inquires into

9 “obvious deficiencies,” with preliminary approval granted if the settlement is non-collusive and

10 within the range of possible final approval. In re Tableware Antitrust Litig., 484 F. Supp. 2d

11 1078, 1079 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (Walker, J.); see also Ruch v. AM Retail Grp., Inc., No. 14–cv–

12 05352–MEJ, 2016 WL 1161453, at *11 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2016) (focusing preliminary approval

13 analysis on “non-collusive negotiations,” the lack of “obvious deficiencies,” and “preferential

14 treatment,” and being “within the range of possible approval”); Alba Conte & Herbert B.

15 Newberg, 4 Newberg on Class Actions, § 11.41 (4th ed. 2006).

16

When considering whether to grant approval, courts often “put a good deal of stock in the

17 product of an arms-length, non-collusive, negotiated resolution.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp.,

18 563 F.3d 948, 965 (9th Cir. 2009). However, the Ninth Circuit has recently cautioned that pre-

19 certification settlements merit significant scrutiny. Roes, 1-2 944 F.3d at 1043. Courts may also

20 assess the following factors, which are assessed in greater detail at final approval. These factors

21 are addressed below: (1) “the strength of the plaintiffs’ case,” “the risk, expense, complexity, and

22 likely duration of further litigation,” and “the risk of maintaining class action status throughout

23 the trial,” (2) “the amount offered in settlement,” (3) “the extent of discovery completed and the

24 stage of the proceedings,” and (4) “the experience and views of counsel.” Hanlon, 150 F.3d at

25 1026. In addition, courts review “the presence of a governmental participant” and “the reaction

26 of the class members to the proposed settlement.” Id. The former is not relevant, and the latter

27 cannot be gauged at this stage.

28

- 17 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 29 of 37

1

1. Plaintiffs’ Case Faced Significant Hurdles on Liability, Class

2

Certification, And on Appeal.

“Approval of a class settlement is appropriate when ‘there are significant barriers
3

plaintiffs must overcome in making their case.’” Betancourt v. Advantage Human Resourcing,
4

Inc., No. 14–cv–01788–JST, 2016 WL 344532, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2016). Plaintiffs face
5

substantial obstacles to full recovery.
6

First, liability is far from guaranteed because even if Plaintiffs could show statistically
7

significant disparities by age in hiring, PwC could point to differences in education, training, and
8

experience to attempt to explain away any differences. Relatedly, much of Plaintiffs’ strongest
9

evidence is of remarks made by PwC recruiters and interviewers to older candidates. PwC could
10

attempt to show that these remarks were individualized and localized rather than part of a
11

nationwide pattern or practice or cohesive recruitment and hiring plan directed by PwC.
12

Second, Plaintiffs faced obstacles in winning class certification because of the multiple
13

job titles, lines of service, specialties, geographic locations, management teams, and individual
14

qualifications at issue. Hiring class actions, while certifiable, face obstacles in litigation because
15

the details of each person’s circumstances – such as their qualifications for the position, interview
16

skills, and jobs taken after being rejected – may require individualized inquiries, including as to
17

damages. See, e.g., Berndt v. California Dep’t of Corrections, No. 03–cv–3174–PJH, 2012 WL
18

950625, at * 13 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2012) (“potential for multiple mini-trials, even solely as to
19

damages, further weakens the case for a finding of superiority”).
20

Third, even if Plaintiffs were able to prevail on the merits at trial, the risk of losing an
21

appeal is high. Although the Court denied PwC an interlocutory appeal of its Motion for
22

Judgment on the Pleadings regarding whether Plaintiffs can bring disparate impact claims on
23

behalf of applicants under the ADEA, at the close of the case PwC would likely seek a new
24

appeal to the Ninth Circuit. There, if Plaintiffs prevailed, it would create a circuit split, increasing
25

the likelihood that the Supreme Court might weigh in and reverse. See Kleber v. CareFusion
26

Corp., 914 F.3d 480 (7th Cir. en banc), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 306 (2019) (job applicants not
27

28

- 18 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 30 of 37

1 covered under ADEA disparate impact provision); Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 839

2 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. en banc 2016) (same).

3

2. The Settlement Amount Is Appropriate.

4

“[P]erhaps the most important factor” courts consider in determining whether to grant

5 preliminary approval is “plaintiffs’ expected recovery balanced against the value of the settlement

6 offer.” Cotter v. Lyft, Inc., 176 F. Supp. 3d 930, 935 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (Chhabria, J.) (internal

7 quotation marks omitted).

8

There are several ways to assess the reasonableness of the Settlement amount.15

9

First, the total exposure, multiplied by the probably of prevailing at each stage, results in

10 an “expected value” for the case significantly below $11,625,000. Plaintiffs calculate the

11 “average” individual Class Member’s damages as follows: a $68,500 starting salary at PwC, an

12 unemployment period of 12 weeks following denial of the Class Member’s application to PwC

13 before getting alternative employment elsewhere (based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (“BLS”)

14 data in this sector), 9% lower pay in alternative employment, 5% annual salary growth, and either

15 a three-year time horizon of future underpayment or a 20-year time horizon (the Class Member’s

16 full career after application to PwC at age of 40 or older). Those assumptions yield damages of

17 approximately $35,243 or $219,659 per person for the three- and 20-year time horizons,

18 respectively. If one assumes the following shortfall numbers: 216 Associate offers, 150

19 Experienced Associate offers, and 212 Senior Associate offers, for a total of 578 offers, those

20 individual damages figures translate to $20.4 million and $126.9 million, respectively.16

21

22

23 15 The following analyses reflect Plaintiffs’ calculations. PwC disagrees with the inputs and

24

approach and would contest them in litigation. 16 The shortfall analysis focuses on discrepancies in offer rates, assuming equal qualifications

25

among the two populations. It is independent of the number of Class Members. The fact that the number of Class Members exceeds the estimated shortfall would not increase the damages

26

calculation, because the damages calculation is capped at the total shortfall (i.e., two applicants cannot both claim a right to be hired for the same unique position). See, e.g., United States v. City

27

of New York, 681 F. Supp. 2d 274, 291 n.22 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (“Because there will likely be many more victims of discrimination than positions that the City would have filled with minority

28

candidates, the [settlement] provides each victim with a pro rata share of the monetary value of those positions.”).

- 19 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 31 of 37

1

The next step is to adjust these raw exposure figures by the probability of Plaintiffs’

2 prevailing at each stage of litigation. Assuming a 50% chance of prevailing at Rule 23

3 certification and FLSA decertification (together), summary judgment, and trial yields an

4 aggregate 12.5% chance of recovering maximum damages. Applying that chance to the average

5 of the two damages figures ($73.6 million) yields an expected value of $9,200,000. This figure

6 ignores the chance of losing on appeal, which is a significant concern given recent changes to the

7 composition of the Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court, taking them in a direction that is more

8 receptive to arguments by corporate interests. Thus, a $9.2 million expected value appears

9 inflated. The $11.625 million settlement compares quite favorably to that expected value.

10

Second, another way to view the settlement is on a per-person basis. Here, the $11.625

11 million settlement equates to approximately $2,325 per person for an estimated 5,000 Class

12 Members. This amount compares reasonably to class action settlements resolving claims of

13 incumbents (as opposed to applicants), where the harm is generally greater, because incumbents

14 experience ongoing harm month after month, year after year. See, e.g., Calibuso v. Bank of Am.

15 Corp., 299 F.R.D. 359, 368 (E.D.N.Y. 2014) ($7,800 per class member for female financial

16 advisors challenging gender discrimination); Gonzalez v. Abercrombie No. 03–cv–02817–SI

17 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2005), ECF No. 125 ($2,000 per class member in race discrimination action

18 for store salespeople and applicants). Here, the approximately 5,000 Class Members are included

19 without regard to qualifications – e.g., some of the 3,456 Opt-Ins and the additional California

20 and Michigan Class Members may have GPAs below 3.0, college majors that are not relevant to

21 accounting and auditing work, and/or inferior work experience.

22

Third, Plaintiffs believe that the settlement is also reasonable compared with Heath v.

23 Google, which recently settled in this district for $11,000,000. 15–cv–1824, ECF No. 438 (N.D.

24 Cal. Aug. 15, 2019). To make the Rabin-Heath comparison apples to apples, four key

25 adjustments are required: (a) 227 Heath opt-ins compared to 578 Rabin positions (making Rabin

26 2.55x as big as Heath), (b) $335,000 vs. $68,500 in salary (0.20x), Heath v. Google, No. 5:15–cv–

27 01824–BLF, ECF No. 346, Ex. 1 at 10–11 n.5, (c) 22 weeks vs. 12 weeks of unemployment per BLS

28 data (0.55x), and (d) the Heath plaintiffs had survived a decertification motion, whereas Rabin has

- 20 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 32 of 37

1 not. Holding aside that last qualitative factor, the quantitative factors (2.55x * 0.20x * 0.55x)

2 yield an aggregate factor of 0.28x, which, when applied to the Heath settlement, yields an

3 expected value of $3,100,000.The proposed settlement far exceeds that.

4

Importantly, Plaintiffs believe that the extensive programmatic relief, while difficult to

5 value with precision, is extremely valuable. Supposing that the programmatic relief aids 2,500

6 individuals to the tune of $1,000 in value for each of the next two years, that benefit to Class

7 Members equals an additional $5,000,000 in value, bringing the total value of the settlement to

8 $16,625,000.

9

Thus, the $11,625,000 common fund plus the programmatic relief constitutes fair,

10 reasonable, and adequate compensation for the Class Members, in light of potential value of their

11 claims.

12

3. The Extent of Discovery Supports Settlement.

13

A settlement requires adequate discovery. The touchstone of the analysis is whether “the

14 parties have sufficient information to make an informed decision about settlement,” including

15 formal and informal discovery. In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 459 (9th Cir.

16 2000).

17

Here, Plaintiffs have litigated these claims zealously for nearly four years, conducting

18 robust formal discovery along the way. Specifically, Plaintiffs obtained 1,042,467 pages of

19 documents from PwC, reviewing and analyzing thousands of corporate documents, training

20 materials for recruiters and other PwC employees involved in the hiring process, emails, internal

21 complaints, in addition to extensive data tracking applications to Covered Positions. Sagafi Decl.

22 ¶ 19. Throughout the Litigation, Plaintiffs’ Counsel interviewed many Class Members and other

23 witnesses, who provided extensive information regarding PwC’s recruitment and hiring process,

24 as well as describing their own individual experiences with discrimination. Id. ¶ 18. Plaintiffs’

25 Counsel also worked closely with experts to analyze various types of potential discrimination in

26 hiring. Id. ¶ 20. Thus, the Settlement results from Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s informed judgment about

27 the strengths and weaknesses of the claims.

28

- 21 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 33 of 37

1

4. Counsel’s Experience And Views Support Approval.

2

“Great weight is accorded to the recommendation of counsel, who are most closely

3 acquainted with the facts of the underlying litigation.” Nat’l Rural Telecomms. Coop. v.

4 DIRECTV, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 523, 528 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (internal quotations omitted). “Parties

5 represented by competent counsel are better positioned than courts to produce a settlement that

6 fairly reflects each party’s expected outcome in litigation.” Rodriguez v. W. Publ’g Corp., 563

7 F.3d 948, 967 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and modifications omitted).

8

Plaintiffs’ Counsel – Outten & Golden LLP, AARP Foundation Litigation, and the Liu

9 Law Office – are some of the most experienced and sophisticated plaintiffs’ employment lawyers

10 in the area of discrimination litigation in the country. Based on their extensive experience and

11 expertise in this particular area of the law, Plaintiffs’ Counsel believe that the Settlement is fair,

12 reasonable, and adequate. Plaintiffs’ Counsel specialize in prosecuting nationwide employment

13 class actions, and over the past many years have successfully—and unsuccessfully—litigated

14 many such cases, putting them in a strong position to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of

15 Plaintiffs’ claims. Sagafi Decl. ¶ 32 (describing “Past Distributions” in accordance with Northern

16 District of California Procedural Guidance for Class Action Settlements).

17

5. The Parties Participated in Arms-Length Negotiations Before Two

18

Experienced Neutral Mediators.

19

A settlement reached “in good faith after a well-informed arms-length negotiation” is

20 presumed to be fair. Fernandez v. Victoria Secret Stores, LLC, No. 06 Civ. 04149, 2008 WL

21 8150856, at *4 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2008); Wren v. RGIS Inventory Specialists, No. 06–cv–05778–

22 JCS, 2011 WL 1230826, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2011); see also Tijero v. Aaron Bros., Inc., 301

23 F.R.D. 314, 325 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (Armstrong, J.) (participation in private mediation “support[s]

24 the conclusion that the settlement process was not collusive”). Here, the settlement easily meets

25 the rigorous scrutiny required in this District and by Roes, 1–2, for both substantive and

26 procedural reasons. First, the Settlement is substantively strong, providing excellent monetary

27 relief and robust programmatic relief. Second, the Settlement is procedurally sound, (a) having

28 been reached after extensive, hard-fought adversarial litigation, with extensive discovery and

- 22 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 34 of 37

1 motion practice, (b) with no parallel litigation that could give rise to reverse auction concerns, and

2 (c) after over a year of mediated settlement discussions with the oversight of two highly

3 experienced mediators with particular expertise, collectively, in this industry and in complex

4 employment discrimination class actions. Sagafi Decl. ¶¶ 22-27.

5

D. The Proposed Notice Is Clear And Adequate.

6

The proposed Notice is the “best notice that is practicable under the circumstances.” Fed.

7 R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B), and is “reasonable,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). The Notice and Claim Form

8 are consistent with Northern District of California’s Procedural Guidance for Class Action

9 Settlements and modern best practices set forth by the Federal Judicial Center (based on examples

10 at www.fjc.gov). The Notice and Claim Form are easily understandable and include: (1) contact

11 information for Class Counsel to answer questions; (2) the address for a website, maintained by

12 the Settlement Administrator that will link to the notice, motions for approval and for attorneys’

13 fees and any other important documents in the case; and (3) instructions on how to access the case

14 docket via PACER or in person at any of the Court’s locations. The Notice will state the date of

15 the final approval hearing and clearly states that the date may change without further notice to the

16 class. The Notice further advises Class Members that they should check the settlement website or

17 the Court’s PACER site to confirm that the date has not been changed.

18

The Notice explains that Class Members have 60 days to object or opt out, and 60 days to

19 submit a Claim Form. Settlement Agreement ¶ 9.2.7.

20

The Claim Form is clear, user-friendly, and focused on a few key relevant facts to which

21 Class Members have ready access. The Claim Form is helpfully pre-printed with individualized

22 information in customized paper copies. It will also be available online, so that Class Members

23 can submit Claim Forms via a web submission form, just like many of them opted into the

24 litigation. In addition, Plaintiffs’ Counsel will assist the Settlement Administrator in responding

25 to Class Member questions, helping them file Claim Forms and navigate the process generally.

26 V. A FINAL APPROVAL HEARING SHOULD BE SCHEDULED.

27

Plaintiffs, in consultation with PwC, propose the following schedule for finalizing and

28 implementing the Settlement:

- 23 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 35 of 37

1

Event

Proposed Date

2

Preliminary Approval Hearing

March 11, 2020

3

Court enters Preliminary Approval Order*

March 18, 2020

PwC provides class list data to Settlement Administrator

April 8, 2020

4

Settlement Administrator disseminates Notice

May 7, 2020

5

Settlement Administrator sends Reminder notices

June 8, 2020

6

Plaintiffs file Fee and Service Award motions

June 22, 2020

Deadline for Class Members to file Claim Forms, opt

July 6, 2020

7

out, and/or object

8

PwC deadline to exercise void option

9

Plaintiffs file Final Approval motion Final Approval Hearing

10

Final Approval Order*

July 23, 2020 July 27, 2020 August 10, 2020 August 17, 2020

11

Effective Date (assuming no appeals)*

12

PwC funds Settlement Settlement Administrator mails checks to Class

13

September 16, 2020 September 30, 2020
October 15, 2020

14

* Assumed date for purposes of calculating subsequent dates.

15 VI. CONCLUSION

16

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: (1) conditionally

17 certify the settlement classes; (2) preliminarily approve the Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

18 23(c) and (e) and section 216(b) of the FLSA; (3) appoint Plaintiffs as the Class Representatives,

19 their counsel as Class Counsel, and JND Legal Administration as Settlement Administrator; (4)

20 set the deadlines for filing claims, written exclusions, or objections to the Settlement; (5) approve

21 the forms of notice to the class of the settlement and the Claim Form; and (6) schedule a hearing

22 on the final approval of the Settlement.

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 24 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 36 of 37

1 Dated: March 3, 2020 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Jahan C. Sagafi Jahan C. Sagafi
Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887) Laura Iris Mattes (Cal. Bar No. 310594) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP One California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 638-8800 Facsimile: (415) 638-8810 E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com E-mail: imattes@outtengolden.com
Adam T. Klein (admitted pro hac vice) Melissa L. Stewart (admitted pro hac vice) Daniel Stromberg (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 Facsimile: (646) 509-2060 E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com E-mail: mstewart@outtengolden.com E-mail: dstromberg@outtengolden.com
Lucy Brierly Bansal (admitted pro hac vice) OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Ste 200W Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 847-4400 Facsimile: (646) 952-9114 E-mail: lbansal@outtengolden.com
Daniel Kohrman (admitted pro hac vice) Laurie McCann (admitted pro hac vice) Dara Smith (admitted pro hac vice) AARP FOUNDATION LITIGATION 601 E. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20049 Telephone: (202) 434-2060 Facsimile: (202) 434-2082 E-mail: dkohrman@aarp.org E-mail: lmccann@aarp.org E-mail: dsmith@aarp.org

- 25 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

Case 4:16-cv-02276-JST Document 312 Filed 03/03/20 Page 37 of 37

1

Jennifer L. Liu (Cal. Bar No. 279370)

2

THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C. 1170 Market Street, Suite 700

3

San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 896-4260

4

Facsimile: (415) 231-0011

E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com
5

6

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Proposed Class and Collective Members

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 26 -

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT
CASE NO. 16-CV-02276-JST

 
 Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 1 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

STEVE RABIN, et al.,

8

Plaintiffs,

9

v.

10

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP,

11

Defendant.

12

Case No. 16-cv-02276-JST
ORDER GRANTING RENEWED MOTION FOR COLLECTIVE CERTIFICATION Re: ECF No. 241 FILED UNDER SEAL

13

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Steve Rabin and John Chapman’s renewed motion for

14 conditional certification of their proposed collective action. ECF No. 241. They seek to certify a

15 class of older applicants for employment at Defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (“PwC”),

16 alleging that such applicants were subject to age discrimination. Because the Court concludes that

17 Plaintiffs’ revised collective definition has cured the deficiencies identified in the Court’s earlier

18 order denying collective certification, see ECF No. 236, the Court will grant the motion.1

19 I. BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiffs filed this putative collective action on April 27, 2016. ECF No. 1. They allege

21 that PwC “engag[es] in an intentional, companywide, and systemic policy, pattern, and/or practice

22 of discrimination against . . . applicants ages 40 and older” and “maintain[s] discriminatory

23 policies, patterns, and/or practices that have an adverse impact on [older] applicants.” ECF No. 42

24 ¶ 115. Plaintiffs assert that PwC “maintains hiring policies and practices for giving preference to

25

26 1 The Court has filed this order under seal because it contains material subject to sealing orders.

27

Within seven days of the filing date of this order, the parties shall provide the Court a stipulated redacted version of this order, redacting only those portions of the order containing or referring to

28

material for which the Court has granted a motion to seal and for which the parties still request the material be sealed. The Court will then issue a redacted version of the order.

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 2 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 younger employees that result in the disproportionate employment of younger applicants.” Id. ¶ 6.

2

Plaintiff Steve Rabin relates his attempts to obtain an associate position at PwC from 2013

3 to 2016, beginning when he was 50 years old. ECF No. 241-3 at 184-86. Rabin declares that his

4 education and work experience – including graduating with distinction from an MBA program

5 with an accounting concentration, holding a CPA license in two states, and providing accounting

6 services for over ten years – more than qualified him for an associate position at PwC. Id. at 184.

7 Based on a PWC manager’s interview questions about Rabin’s ability to “fit in” with younger

8 employees, combined with the experience of being unable to apply for a position listed on PwC’s

9 “campus” recruiting website without a college email or mailing address, Rabin believes that PwC

10 discriminated based on his age in failing to hire him. Id. at 186. Plaintiff John Chapman describes

11 similar experiences: He applied to numerous positions at PwC from the ages of 45 to 48 and was

12 not hired, despite being qualified for those positions. Id. at 51-52. Chapman relates interactions

13 with PwC employees, including current associates, an interviewer, and a campus recruiter, that

14 made him believe that “PwC maintains a culture of favoring younger applicants.” Id. at 52.

15

Plaintiffs previously sought to certify a collective action of “all individuals aged 40 and

16 older who, from October 18, 2013 forward, applied or attempted to apply but were not hired for a

17 full-time Covered Position (Associate, Experienced Associate, and Senior Associate) in the Tax or

18 Assurance lines of service.” ECF No. 198 at 26-27. The Court denied the motion because Rabin

19 and Chapman were not substantially similar to either unqualified applicants or deterred applicants,

20 two groups that fell within their original collective definition proposal. ECF No. 236.

21

Plaintiffs now bring a renewed motion for collective certification, proposing a collective

22 action open to “[a]ll individuals who, from October 18, 2013 forward, applied for a Covered

23 Position (Associate, Experienced Associate, and Senior Associate) in PwC’s Tax or Assurance

24 lines of service, met the minimum qualifications for the position to which they applied, were age

25 40 or older at the time of application, and were not hired.” ECF No. 246-4 at 25. Because this

26 revised definition excludes unqualified and deterred applicants, Plaintiffs urge that certification is

27 now appropriate. Id. PwC opposes the motion, arguing that Plaintiffs have failed to offer “some

28 reliable and verifiable way to identify who ‘met the minimum qualifications.’” ECF No. 249 at 6. 2

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 3 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD

2

Plaintiffs seek collective certification of their Age Discrimination in Employment Act

3 (“ADEA”) case under the standards set forth under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29

4 U.S.C. § 216(b). The ADEA incorporates the collective action procedures of FLSA, set forth in

5 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). See 29 U.S.C. § 626(b); Lewis v. Wells Fargo & Co., 669 F. Supp. 2d 1124,

6 1126 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“[B]ecause ADEA incorporates § 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards

7 Act into its enforcement scheme, the same rules govern judicial management of collective actions

8 under both statutes.”).

9

29 U.S.C. § 216(b) provides that actions against employers may be brought “in any Federal

10 or State court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees for and in behalf of himself

11 or themselves and other employees similarly situated.” A suit brought on behalf of other

12 employees is known as a “collective action,” a type of suit that is “fundamentally different” from

13 class actions. Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. 66, 74 (2013) (citation omitted);

14 Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1101 (9th Cir. 2018) (describing collective

15 actions and class actions as “creatures of distinct texts . . . that impose distinct requirements”). For

16 example, unlike in class actions, members of a collective action must file a “consent to sue” letter

17 with the court in which the action is brought, creating an opt-in class. 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Also

18 different is that “‘conditional certification’ does not produce a class with an independent legal

19 status, or join additional parties to the action.” Genesis, 569 U.S. at 75. “A collective action is

20 more accurately described as a kind of mass action, in which aggrieved workers act as a collective

21 of individual plaintiffs with individual cases.” Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1105. Collective actions

22 allow aggrieved employees “the advantage of lower individual costs to vindicate rights by the

23 pooling of resources.” Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989).

24

Collective certification requires a showing that the potential class members are “similarly

25 situated.” Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)). A majority of courts,

26 including district courts in this circuit, follow a two-step process for determining whether a

27 collective is “similarly situated.” See Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1100; Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d at

28 1127; see also Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 753 F. Supp. 2d 996, 1003 (N.D. Cal. 2010). 3

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 4 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

At the first step, referred to as “the notice stage” and “preliminary certification,” the court

2 considers whether the plaintiff has made a sufficient showing that the collective is “similarly

3 situated” to justify the conditional certification of the class and the sending of notice of the action

4 to potential class members. Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1100; Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127. “At this

5 early stage of the litigation, the district court’s analysis is typically focused on a review of the

6 pleadings but may sometimes be supplemented by declarations or limited other evidence.”

7 Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1109. Given this limited evidence, “the initial determination is usually

8 made under a fairly lenient standard and typically results in conditional class certification.”

9 Leuthold v. Destination Am., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 462, 467 (N.D. Cal. 2004); see also Lewis, 669 F.

10 Supp. 2d at 1127; Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1109 (describing the standard of review on preliminary

11 certification as “loosely akin to a plausibility standard, commensurate with the stage of the

12 proceedings”). “The fact that a defendant submits competing declarations will not as a general

13 rule preclude conditional certification.” Harris v. Vector Mktg. Corp., 716 F. Supp. 2d 835, 838

14 (N.D. Cal. 2010); see also Ramirez v. Ghilotti Bros. Inc., 941 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1203 (N.D. Cal.

15 2013) (“[C]ourts need not even consider evidence provided by defendants at this stage.”). “A

16 grant of preliminary certification results in the dissemination of a court-approved notice to the

17 putative collective action members, advising them that they must affirmatively opt in to participate

18 in the litigation.” Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1109.

19

“At the second step of the two-step inquiry, ‘the party opposing the certification may

20 move to decertify the class once discovery is complete.’” Heath v. Google Inc., 215 F. Supp. 3d

21 844, 852 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (quoting Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530, 536 (N.D.

22 Cal. 2007)). At that stage, the court evaluates the collective action under a stricter standard for

23 “similarly situated.” Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127; see also Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1110 (“The

24 district court will then take a more exacting look at the plaintiffs’ allegations and the record.”). At

25 that point, the court considers several factors, “including the disparate factual and employment

26 settings of the individual plaintiffs; the various defenses available to the defendant which appear to

27 be individual to each plaintiff; fairness and procedural considerations; and whether the plaintiffs

28 made any required filings before instituting suit.” Lewis, 669 F. Supp. 2d at 1127. 4

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 5 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 III. DISCUSSION

2

Plaintiffs now seek certification of a nationwide ADEA collective open to “[a]ll

3 individuals who, from October 18, 2013 forward, applied for a Covered Position (Associate,

4 Experienced Associate, and Senior Associate) in PwC’s Tax or Assurance lines of service, met the

5 minimum qualifications for the position to which they applied, were age 40 or older at the time of

6 application, and were not hired.” ECF No. 246-4 at 25. Based on the limited discovery available

7 at this point, Plaintiffs assert that “minimum qualifications” for entry-level Associate positions

8 consist of “a bachelor’s degree in a relevant field, a GPA of 3.0 or higher, and a commitment to

9 obtain a CPA license.” Id. For Experienced Associate and Senior Associate roles, Plaintiffs

10 report that the minimum qualifications are “a CPA license or commitment to obtain one, and

11 additional relevant experience (1-2 years for Experienced Associates, and 2-4 years for Senior

12 Associates).” Id.

13

The Court’s earlier order denying certification employed a two-part test for conditional

14 collective certification. First, Plaintiffs were required to “provide substantial allegations,

15 supported by declarations or discovery, that the putative class members were together the victims

16 of a single decision, policy or plan.” ECF No. 236 at 7 (quoting Saleh v. Valbin Corp., 297 F.

17 Supp. 3d 1025, 1033 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Second, “Plaintiffs

18 must show at this stage that they are ‘generally comparable to those they seek to represent.’” ECF

19 No. 236 at 8 (quoting Villa v. United Site Servs. of Cal., No. 5:12-CV-00318-LHK, 2012 WL

20 5503550, at *13 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2012)).

21

As Plaintiffs point out, ECF No. 246-4 at 24-25, the Court already determined “that

22 Plaintiffs have adequately shown a uniform decision, policy, or plan on the basis of PwC’s

23 centralized and uniform hiring policies, and the substantial evidence of age disparities in hiring.”

24 ECF No. 236 at 8. Plaintiffs argue that this holding is now the law of the case. ECF No. 246-4 at

25 24. Because “reconsideration of legal questions previously decided should be avoided,” the law of

26 the case doctrine generally precludes courts from reconsidering issues already decided in the same

27 case. United States v. Smith, 389 F.3d 944, 948 (9th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also United

28 States v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 874, 876 (9th Cir. 1997). Thus, Plaintiffs urge that the only question 5

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 6 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 now before the Court with regard to the appropriateness of conditional certification is whether

2 Plaintiffs are “generally comparable” to those they seek to represent. See ECF No. 246-4 at 29.

3 The Court rejected Plaintiffs’ first proposed collective definition on the grounds that Rabin and

4 Chapman were not generally comparable – and thus not similarly situated – to facially unqualified

5 applicants or to applicants who were deterred from applying in the first place. ECF No. 236 at 11.

6 Because the collective Plaintiffs now propose excludes unqualified and deterred applicants,

7 Plaintiffs insist that the Court should grant conditional certification and allow notice to be

8 disseminated to the potential collective members. ECF No. 246-4 at 30.

9

Courts retain discretion to depart from the law of the case where, among other things, “an

10 intervening change in the law has occurred.” Alexander, 106 F.3d at 876. Here, in the time since

11 the Court’s prior order, Plaintiffs’ filing of their renewed motion for collective certification, and

12 PwC’s filing in opposition, the Ninth Circuit has clarified the standards applicable to the

13 “similarly situated” requirement. It is now clear that to be “similarly situated” under the FLSA

14 (and thus, the ADEA), “party plaintiffs must be alike with regard to some material aspect of their

15 litigation. . . . If the party plaintiffs’ factual or legal similarities are material to the resolution of

16 their case, dissimilarities in other respects should not defeat collective treatment.” Campbell, 903

17 F.3d at 1114. PwC accepts that, after Campbell, “plaintiffs are similarly situated, and may

18 proceed in a collective, to the extent they share a similar issue of law or fact material to the

19 disposition of their FLSA claims.” ECF No. 253-1 at 2 (quoting Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1117).

20 But PwC insists that this holding does not change the question now before the Court, because

21 “facially unqualified applicants are not similarly situated to facially qualified applicants, and so

22 should be excluded from the notice process.” ECF No. 253-1 at 3.

23

PwC’s primary argument in opposition to the motion is that conditional certification must

24 be denied because Plaintiffs have failed to “define a collective sufficiently narrowly that notice

25 will be limited to persons who are similarly situated to the named Plaintiffs.” ECF No. 249 at 6-7.

26 PwC emphasizes the difficulties inherent in “[d]etermining whether a given applicant meets basic

27 qualifications.” Id. at 10. According to PwC, this process requires “a mix of individualized

28 quantitative and qualitative assessments,” and “basic qualifications vary from position to 6

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 7 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 position.” Id. In reply, Plaintiffs propose that, once the collective is certified, the parties should

2 collaborate to review PwC’s applicant data and internal guidance regarding minimum

3 qualifications to develop a notice list, excluding those who facially lack the minimum

4 qualifications. ECF No. 151-10 at 8-9. Under Plaintiffs’ proposal, the notice will include an

5 attachment explaining PwC’s minimum qualifications for the relevant positions. Id. at 9.

6 Individuals who review the attachment and determine that they meet the collective definition may

7 then choose whether to opt in. Id. In response, PwC insists that “nothing in Campbell suggests

8 the Court should . . . approve a collective definition that would lead to numerous individualized

9 factual disputes (likely in the thousands) about whether specific applicants were facially qualified

10 and therefore satisfy Plaintiffs’ proposed collective definition.” ECF No. 253-1 at 3.

11

Having considered the parties’ arguments for and against certification, the Court agrees

12 with Plaintiffs’ characterization of the inquiry at this phase. “[T]he two-step process, culminating

13 in a decertification motion on or after the close of relevant discovery, has the advantage of

14 ensuring early notice of plausible collective actions, then eliminating those whose promise is not

15 borne out by the record.” Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1110. The Court has already found that

16 “Plaintiffs have adequately shown a uniform decision, policy, or plan on the basis of PwC’s

17 centralized and uniform hiring policies.” ECF No. 251-10 at 10 (quoting ECF No. 236 at 8). In

18 light of that factual finding, the evidence underlying it, and Plaintiffs’ subsequent revisions to their

19 collective definition to exclude unqualified and deterred applicants, the Court concludes that the

20 collective Plaintiffs now propose is comprised of members who are “similarly situated” insofar as

21 they share similar issues of law and fact material to their ADEA claims. Because Plaintiffs’

22 proposed collective thereby meets the standards for conditional, notice-stage certification as set

23 forth in Campbell, the Court grants the motion for collective certification. The Court will certify a

24 collective action open to “[a]ll individuals who, from October 18, 2013 forward, applied for a

25 Covered Position (Associate, Experienced Associate, and Senior Associate) in PwC’s Tax or

26 Assurance lines of service, met the minimum qualifications for the position to which they applied,

27 were age 40 or older at the time of application, and were not hired.” Should it become clear that

28 Plaintiffs’ proposed definition is indeed unworkable, as PwC alleges, the two-step collective 7

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 8 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1 certification process provides a ready solution: PwC may move to decertify the class. See

2 Campbell, 903 F.3d at 1117 (“The district court may be able to decertify where conditions make

3 the collective mechanism truly infeasible, but it cannot reject the party plaintiffs’ choice to

4 proceed collectively based on its perception of likely inconvenience.”).

5

Having so ruled, the Court cannot yet order notice to potential members of the collective

6 action because – as the parties themselves agree – further meet-and-confer efforts are required

7 before they and the Court can determine who will receive such notice. See ECF No. 249 at 25

8 (Defendant urging that “the parties should be directed to meet and confer promptly regarding the

9 form and content of the proposed notice, if any collective is conditionally certified”); ECF No. 263

10 at 8 (Plaintiffs’ counsel stating “what we’d ask is for today Your Honor . . . to certify the

11 collective and then allow a process where the parties could implement, essentially, the conditional

12 certification order by having some transparency, reviewing the data, and agreeing on a process”);

13 see also Heath v. Google Inc., 215 F. Supp. 3d 844, 859 (N.D. Cal. 2016) (directing parties to

14 meet and confer on “the proper form and content of the notice to be sent to potential opt-ins, . . .

15 on the appointment of a third-party administrator to issue the notice and process opt-ins,” and on

16 how to determine a proxy for applicants’ age).

17

Accordingly, the parties are directed to meet and confer to to develop a notice list, form of

18 notice, opt-in form, and attachment describing the minimum qualifications for the positions at

19 issue. To streamline these negotiations, the Court makes the following observations:

20

• The process of determining who will receive notice will not proceed on an

21 application-by-application basis, as PwC’s counsel suggested at the motion hearing. See ECF No.

22 263 at 26-28. Such a process would defeat the purposes of good case management which are

23 central to the collective action process. See Campbell v. City of Los Angeles, 903 F.3d 1090, 1110

24 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting that “the proper means of managing a collective action – the form and

25 timing of notice, the timing of motions, the extent of discovery before decertification is addressed

26 – is largely a question of case management” (citations and quotation marks omitted)).

27

• The collective action will not be limited only to those who received an interview.

28 See ECF No. 263 at 38. 8

Case 3:16-cv-02276-JST Document 274 Filed 04/05/19 Page 9 of 9

United States District Court Northern District of California

1

• That the Rejection Reason field within PwC’s Source1 database states “does not

2 meet basic qualifications,” standing alone, will not disqualify someone from receiving notice. See

3 ECF No. 263 at 25-26; id. at 50-51.

4

• The parties may propose fields within PwC’s Source1 database in addition to the

5 field “meets basic qualifications.” ECF No. 263 at 42.

6

• The parties’ joint proposal or competing proposals for disseminating notice to the

7 approved collective are due by April 25, 2019. If the parties submit competing proposals, the

8 Court will endeavor to choose, in all respects, the single proposal it concludes is most reasonable.

9 See Michael Carrell & Richard Bales, Considering Final Offer Arbitration to Resolve Public

10 Sector Impasses in Times of Concession Bargaining, 28 Ohio St. J. on Disp. Resol. 1, 20 (2013)

11 (“In baseball arbitration . . . the parties . . . have every incentive to make a reasonable proposal to

12 the arbitrator because the arbitrator will choose the more reasonable offer.”). There will be no

13 further hearing on the question of notice unless the Court subsequently so orders.

14

CONCLUSION

15

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the motion and conditionally certifies the

16 collective action. The parties’ joint proposal for notifying the collective is due within 45 days.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: March 28, 2019 19 20

______________________________________
JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9