Frederick-Osborn v. Twitter, Inc.

Background

Sydney Frederick-Osborn, a former staff software engineer at Twitter, brought a putative class action against Twitter, Inc. and X Corp. She alleged sex-based discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, and age-based discrimination under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The proposed classes included female Twitter employees and employees aged 50 or older who were allegedly constructively discharged after Elon Musk purchased Twitter.

According to the complaint, Twitter carried out a large reduction in force after Musk’s purchase. The company then imposed policies requiring employees to work long hours and return to physical offices. On November 16, 2022, Musk sent an email requiring employees to click “yes” to accept the new expectations or receive three months of severance. Frederick-Osborn did not click “yes” and was laid off the next day. She also alleged that the reduction in force and later policies disproportionately affected women and older employees, and that Musk had made sexist and age-related public statements.

Motion to Dismiss Standard

The defendants moved to dismiss all claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. At this stage, the court accepts the complaint’s factual allegations as true, draws reasonable inferences for the plaintiff, and asks whether the allegations plausibly show an entitlement to relief. The court does not resolve factual disputes or draw disputed inferences for the defendants.

Sex-Discrimination Claims

The court considered both disparate-treatment and disparate-impact theories. Disparate treatment requires an inference that the employer treated employees less favorably because of a protected characteristic, while disparate impact challenges a facially neutral employment practice that affects one protected group more harshly and lacks sufficient business justification.

For disparate treatment, the court held that Frederick-Osborn plausibly alleged an adverse employment action. The ultimatum’s statement that employees who did not click “yes” would receive severance supported an inference that Twitter terminated employees based on their inaction rather than that they voluntarily resigned. The court also found that the alleged workplace changes, ultimatum, reduction in force, and public statements plausibly supported a constructive-discharge theory.

The court further held that the complaint plausibly connected the termination to sex discrimination. It relied in part on allegations that 36 percent of remaining female employees, compared with 28 percent of remaining male employees, left after the ultimatum, and on Musk’s alleged statements about women, careers, and family obligations. The court concluded that these allegations plausibly supported an inference that sex was a motivating factor in the policies and termination. It therefore denied the motion to dismiss the sex-based disparate-treatment claims.

The court also denied dismissal of the sex-based disparate-impact claims. Frederick-Osborn identified the challenged practices as the requirements for long, intense, and in-person work and alleged that those practices produced a significantly higher termination rate for female employees. The court found those allegations sufficiently specific at the pleading stage and concluded that the complaint plausibly connected the practices to the alleged disparity.

Age-Discrimination Claims

The court held that Frederick-Osborn failed to state age-discrimination claims under either disparate-treatment or disparate-impact theories. Although she alleged that older employees were disproportionately affected by the initial reduction in force and that older employees were forced out after Musk’s purchase, she did not allege facts showing that employees aged 50 or older were terminated at a higher rate for failing to click “yes” or that the post-reduction policies and ultimatum caused older employees to leave.

The court also found the alleged age-related statement by Musk insufficient to support a plausible inference that he knew older employees would be less likely to accept long and intense work requirements. The court rejected the alleged pattern-or-practice theory because the complaint did not allege an overarching, system-wide pattern showing that age discrimination was Twitter’s regular procedure or standard operating practice.

For disparate impact, the court explained that the complaint’s general allegation that more older employees left after Musk’s acquisition did not tie the alleged disparity to a specific employment practice or employment action. The court distinguished this allegation from a claim identifying a discrete practice that created a discriminatory barrier. It therefore granted the motion to dismiss the age-based claims, with leave to amend.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the sex-based discrimination claims and granted the motion to dismiss the age-based discrimination claims with leave to amend. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed by April 25, 2024, continued the initial case-management conference, and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 13.