SAN JOSE – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 13 turned back a complaint but left it open to the plaintiff to establish jurisdiction in a lawsuit against T-Mobile and Amazon, alleging age discrimination in employment.
“The fourth amended complaint does not currently contain the allegations necessary to establish standing or personal jurisdiction, but the plaintiffs have adequately justified their narrow request for jurisdictional discovery,” the U.S. District Court opinion read.
T-Mobile is one of the largest wireless companies in the country, providing wireless communications services -- including voice, messaging and data -- to more than 71 million customers. Amazon is one of the largest online retailers in the world.
Linda Bradley and three other named plaintiffs represent a class action of plaintiffs who sued the companies in December 2017, accusing them of running advertisements on Facebook targeting and appealing to younger workers and excluding older workers.
The class consists of members of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), an international labor union that represents over 700,000 workers in industries including telecommunications, cable and information technology.
During the process of litigation, the complaint by the plaintiffs was amended four times.
“The defendants have routinely focused their Facebook employment ads on users who are under 40 years old and sometimes on users who are under higher age thresholds,” the complaint alleged. “This prevents workers who are above the selected age threshold from receiving employment ads and pursuing relevant job opportunities.”
The court document exhibited several smartphone advertisements. One stated, “T-Mobile Careers wants to reach people ages 18 to 38 who live or were recently in the United States.”
The plaintiffs contend the defendants used age-restricted employment ads as part of a pattern of age discrimination in employment advertising, recruitment, and hiring.
The plaintiffs alleged violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which makes it unlawful for an employer to show preference based on age.
Attorneys for the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, claiming a lack of jurisdiction under the Rules of Civil Procedure and failure to properly state a claim.
“The plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that CWA’s members would have standing to sue in their own right,” the brief said. “To meet this requirement, the plaintiffs need only show that one of CWA’s members has standing.”
The court also determined the plaintiffs had failed to show jurisdiction, as there was no evidence presented that the defendants aimed their advertisements at California.
The U.S. District Court dismissed the fourth plaintiff complaint with leave to file a fifth to demonstrate their case. A request for further jurisdictional discovery was also granted.
The parties were directed to formulate a discovery plan and propose a deadline for the plaintiffs to file a fifth amended complaint. The proposed schedule was to be filed by March 20.