Zeman v. Twitter, Inc.

Background

John Zeman, a former Twitter employee, alleged that Twitter unlawfully discriminated against him and other employees based on age during layoffs following Elon Musk’s purchase of Twitter. Zeman alleged that approximately 2,686 of Twitter’s 4,964 employees were laid off on November 4, 2022, including approximately 60% of employees aged 50 or older and 54% of employees under 50. He also alleged that approximately 73% of employees aged 60 or older were laid off, compared with 54% of employees under 60.

Zeman, who was 63 when he was laid off, brought proposed class claims under the federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. He asserted two types of age-discrimination claims: disparate treatment, which requires discriminatory intent, and disparate impact, which concerns a facially neutral employment practice that affects one group more harshly than another. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims and to strike the class allegations.

Disparate-Treatment Claims

The court held that Zeman had not alleged enough nonconclusory facts plausibly connecting his termination to intentional age discrimination. In particular, he did not allege that his performance was satisfactory or that younger employees who were retained were similarly situated. The court stated that a plaintiff need not plead a complete preliminary discrimination case to survive a motion to dismiss, but must still plausibly link the adverse employment action to discrimination.

The court dismissed Zeman’s disparate-treatment claims with leave to amend. It ordered him to amend those claims no later than September 29, 2023.

Disparate-Impact Claims

The court rejected Twitter’s argument that age-discrimination claims based on employees aged 50 and older were not legally cognizable under the federal law. It held that the federal law prohibits discrimination because of an individual’s age, while limiting protection to individuals aged 40 and older; it does not limit claims to discrimination between people inside and outside the entire protected age group. The court therefore held that a disparate-impact claim for individuals aged 50 and older is cognizable.

The court reached the same conclusion under the New York State Human Rights Law, holding that the statute’s language allows disparate-impact claims based on age subgroups rather than only claims involving the entire group of people aged 18 and older.

The court also held that Zeman sufficiently identified a facially neutral employment practice by alleging that layoff decisions were quickly delegated to managers exercising subjective discretion. Finally, although the alleged disparity for employees aged 50 and older was slightly below the Ninth Circuit’s usual statistical-significance threshold, the alleged disparity for employees aged 60 and older exceeded that threshold. The court concluded that the allegations were sufficient to survive at the pleading stage. The motion to dismiss the other claims was denied.

Class Allegations

Zeman proposed a class of employees aged 50 and older who lost their jobs after Musk took control of Twitter. Defendants sought to strike allegations covering employees terminated after November 4, 2022, or terminated for reasons other than the reduction in force. The court held that striking class allegations before discovery is generally disfavored and that the proposed class might be narrowed after discovery. It therefore denied the motion to strike the class allegations as premature.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. Zeman’s disparate-treatment claims were dismissed with leave to amend, while the motion was denied as to his other claims. The motion to strike class allegations was denied as premature.