Cahill versus Nike, Inc. is a class action lawsuit brought by former and current employees of Nike. The parties in the lawsuit included Alyssa Anderson, Kelly Cahill, and Samantha Keller, who allege that Nike engaged in gender discrimination concerning pay and promotions (Jin, 2022). The plaintiffs, Kelly Cahill and Sara Johnston, claim that Nike routinely underpays female employees and denies them equal opportunity for growth. Nike, Inc. is a global athletic footwear, apparel, and equipment company headquartered in Beaverton, Oregon. Nike employs over 76,000 people worldwide, and its products are sold in over 190 countries. Nike’s revenue for the fiscal year 2017 was $34.4 billion (Kim, 2020).
The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Nike in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The charges that Nike discriminated against its female employees are the most crucial information needed to comprehend the case because Nike is charged with paying its female employees less than their male counterparts and giving them fewer possibilities for promotion. Nike is also accused of subjecting its female employees to a hostile work environment, in which they were subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination. The basic legal question regarding the specific provision of law to be decided in the case is whether Nike violated the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by paying women less than men for comparable work and denying women opportunities for promotion.
Analysis
The legal conflict in Cahill v. Nike, Inc. is that the plaintiffs claim that Nike systematically discriminated against its female employees regarding pay and promotions. The relevant legislation surrounding the case is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination in employment is the pertinent law (Klein et al., 2021). The plaintiffs allege that Nike’s discriminatory practices have a disparate impact on women of colour. Nike denies that it has engaged in any discriminatory practices. Nike argues that the plaintiffs have not alleged any specific instances of discrimination and that Nike has policies and practices in place to ensure that its employees are paid and promoted based on their qualifications and performance. The case is currently in the discovery phase.
Conclusion
The Cahill v. Nike, Inc. case was filed in 2018 and is still ongoing. The case is still in the early stages, and no legal decisions have been made yet. It is difficult to predict the case’s outcome, but the court may find in favor of the plaintiffs and order Nike to pay damages. It is also possible that the court will find in favor of Nike and dismiss the case.
There is a high probability that the court will favor the plaintiffs and order Nike to pay damages since there is a lot of evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims, whereas Nike’s denial of the claims is not credible. The court will find that Nike’s treatment of its female employees is a form of discrimination and that this violation is unlawful. If the court does favor the plaintiffs, Nike will probably be ordered to pay damages to the plaintiffs. It is paramount that Nike will change its policies and procedures regarding pay for female employees. This case will have a significant impact on Nike and on other companies who have been accused of similar practices.
References
Jin, W. (2022). Nike’s Relation with Non-government-organizations. Advances In Social Science, Education And Humanities Research.
Kim, M. (2020). How Phil Knight made Nike a leader in the sport industry: examining the success factors. Sport In Society, 23(9), 1512-1523.
Klein, F., Hill, A., Hammond, R., & Stice-Lusvardi, R. (2021). The gender equity gap: A multistudy investigation of within-job inequality in equity-based awards. Journal Of Applied Psychology, 106(5), 734-753.