Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-07464
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P., Judge Woods granted reconsideration, allowing Ndugga’s disparate-impact claims to proceed against Bloomberg.
The ruling affects Naula Ndugga’s disparate-impact claims against Bloomberg L.P. and permits those claims to proceed; the opinion states that she brought the case on behalf of herself and similarly situated women.
What happened
Naula Ndugga, a Black woman who formerly worked in Bloomberg’s Media Division, asked the court to reconsider its earlier dismissal of her claims that Bloomberg’s employment practices caused unequal pay for women. The case also includes claims brought on behalf of similarly situated women.
Ndugga’s amended complaint alleged about 20% pay differences between men and women in certain Bloomberg offices, while the news-media industry’s difference was about 10% to 15%. She also alleged that the same Editorial Management Committee controlled compensation decisions across Bloomberg offices, including New York, Washington, and the United Kingdom. Bloomberg argued that the allegations about New York were too speculative.
The court held that the allegations reasonably suggested Bloomberg’s common compensation decision-maker caused pay disparities greater than those in the industry. Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Ndugga’s motion for reconsideration and denied Bloomberg’s underlying motion to dismiss the disparate-impact claims.
The detailed version
- Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P. · No. 1:20-cv-07464
- Gregory Woods
- July 25, 2023
Background
Naula Ndugga, a Black woman who formerly worked for Bloomberg L.P.’s Media Division, sued Bloomberg on behalf of herself and similarly situated women. She alleged that Bloomberg used discriminatory employment policies and practices imposed by a three-person Editorial Management Committee that controlled hiring and compensation decisions. The court’s prior opinion allowed her retaliation claim to proceed but dismissed her Title VII claims and disparate-impact claims.
Ndugga moved for reconsideration of the dismissal of her disparate-impact claims. Under Southern District of New York Local Rule 6.3, reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy generally available when a party identifies an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error or manifest injustice. Ndugga relied on clear error.
Court’s Analysis
The court reconsidered whether Ndugga had adequately pleaded a disparate-impact claim. A disparate-impact claim challenges an employment practice that may appear neutral but allegedly produces a disproportionate effect on a protected group. At the pleading stage, statistical allegations must plausibly suggest that the challenged practice actually caused the disparity, but the plaintiff does not yet have to prove the details of the statistical method or provide supporting evidence.
The court explained that its earlier ruling found Ndugga’s allegations insufficient because they did not adequately connect Bloomberg’s employment practices to the alleged pay differences. In her third amended complaint, Ndugga added allegations that women experienced an average pay disparity of about 20% at all levels in Bloomberg’s Washington, D.C., bureau and United Kingdom office. She also alleged that the same Editorial Management Committee controlled compensation for Bloomberg Media reporters, editors, and producers in those locations and in New York. In addition, she alleged that pay disparities in the industry averaged about 10% to 15%.
The court concluded that these allegations reasonably supported an inference that Bloomberg’s practices caused gender-based pay disparities greater than those in the news-media industry. It rejected Bloomberg’s argument that the allegations were impermissibly speculative because Ndugga did not specifically plead a 20% disparity in the New York office. The court found that the alleged disparities at other Bloomberg locations, combined with the committee’s common control over compensation, made similar disparities in New York plausible at this stage.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods granted Ndugga’s motion for reconsideration. The court accordingly denied Bloomberg’s underlying motion to dismiss Ndugga’s disparate-impact claims. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion pending at Docket Number 125. The opinion did not decide whether Ndugga would ultimately prove the alleged discrimination.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.