Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 1 of 40
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`Stephen Noel Ilg (SBN 275599)
`George L. Lin (SBN 287873)
`156 South Spruce Ave., Unit 206A
`South San Francisco, CA 94080
`Tel:
`(415)580-2574
`Fax:
`(415)735-3454
`Email: silg@ilglegal.com
`Email: glin@ilglegal.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Emma Majo
`
`UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`Emma Majo, an individual,
`
`Case No. 3:21-cv-09054
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION
`
`vs.
`
`Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, a
`California limited liability company,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`This Complaint is brought by Plaintiff Emma Majo (“Plaintiff” and/or “Ms. Majo”), an
`individual, against her former employer, Defendant Sony Interactive Entertainment (“Sony” or
`“Defendant”). Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all causes of action triable to a jury. Plaintiff
`alleges the following:
`
`PLAINTIFF
`At all times material herein, Plaintiff was and is a competent adult and resident of
`1.
`the State of California, San Diego County. Plaintiff began working for Defendants in 2015.
`DEFENDANTS
`Defendant Sony was and is a California limited liability company registered to do
`2.
`business in the State of California, including but not limited to conducting business within this
`
`-1-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`District, specifically in San Mateo County, with its corporate headquarters located at 2207
`Bridgepointe Parkway, San Mateo CA 94404. At all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff is
`informed and believes that Defendant Sony is authorized to and does conduct business in the State
`of California in the consumer technology industry, including but not necessarily limited to San
`Mateo County. Sony was formerly known as Sony Computer Entertainment, headquartered in
`Tokyo. Plaintiff was an employee of Sony Computer Entertainment America, the Americas
`regional office, regional HQ in San Mateo. Global offices and Sony companies merged to become
`Sony Interactive Entertainment in April 2016, with global headquarters in San Mateo.
`To the extent any allegation contradicts another allegation, they are to be construed
`3.
`as “alternative” theories.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on federal question
`4.
`jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This action involves a dispute regarding violations of
`several federal laws, including but not limited to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
`(“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216; and 28 U.S.C. § 2201. The claims governed by California law
`constitute the same case and controversy raised in the claims under federal law because the claims
`governed by California law derive from a common nucleus of operative facts as the claims
`governed by federal law.
`The Northern District of California has personal jurisdiction over Sony Interactive
`5.
`Entertainment, LLC (“Sony”) because Sony transacts significant business in the State of
`California and in this District.
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b); 29 U.S.C. § 216;
`6.
`and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, because Defendant conducts substantial business in the Northern District
`of California, and because, upon information and belief, unlawful employment practices
`originated in this District.
`Plaintiff duly filed her administrative charges before the California Department of
`7.
`Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”).
`///
`
`-2-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`Defendants regularly and systematically do business in the State of California and
`8.
`are subject to suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) in that Defendants
`regularly employ five or more persons. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination, failure to
`investigate discrimination and retaliation against Defendants with the California Department of
`Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”). On November 22, 2021, Plaintiff received a notice of
`the right to sue from the DFEH pursuant to California Government Code section 12965(b).
`Plaintiff filed this action within one year of the date of her DFEH right-to-sue letter(s); therefore,
`administrative remedies have been properly exhausted.
`Plaintiff has satisfied all private, administrative and judicial prerequisites to the
`9.
`institution of this action. Federal claims under the federal Equal Pay Act do not require any right-
`to-sue notice.
`Plaintiff will satisfy all applicable administrative requirements to pursue a claim
`10.
`under the Private Attorney General’s Act then amend to add a claim pursuant to the Private
`Attorney General’s Act, California Labor Code sections 2698 et seq.
`The California Workers’ Compensation Act does not preempt this action because
`11.
`Defendant’s unlawful practices, as alleged herein, are not risks or conditions of employment.
`Plaintiff is not required to satisfy any further private, administrative, or judicial prerequisites to
`the institution of this action, insofar as such prerequisites pertain to any of the remaining causes
`of action in this complaint.
`CLASS AND COLLECTIVE ACTION ALLEGATIONS
`Plaintiff represents a class consisting of “All individuals employed by Sony
`12.
`Interactive Entertainment, LLC in California at any time during the time period beginning four
`years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action who are either (a)
`female or (b) identify as female.”
`Plaintiff alleges that employees who are female or identify as female (a) were not
`13.
`compensated equally to male employees who had substantially similar job classifications,
`functions, titles, and/or duties; (b) were not compensated equally to male employees who
`
`-3-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 4 of 40
`
`
`
`performed substantially similar work; (c) were denied equal compensation to similarly situated
`male employees by being held back to lower pay levels; and/or (d) were denied promotions.
`Sony reports that forty-one percent (41%) of PlayStation owners are females (i.e.,
`14.
`41% of the owners of the two most recent consoles, the PS4 and PS5 consoles). (See
`https://www.Sony.com/en/Sony Info/IR/library/presen/irday/pdf/2021/GNS_E.pdf [last visited
`November 21, 2021]. Even though nearly half of PlayStation owners are females, a 2020 study
`revealed that Sony’s Executive Committee was 100% male. (See https://20-first.com/wp-
`content/uploads/2020/08/200825-2020-Global-Gaming-Scorecard-Web.pdf
`[last
`visited
`November 21, 2021].) The report was prepared by “20-first Research” which analyzes “progress
`on gender balance in the top companies of a number of industries and countries, as well as across
`the Top 100 companies of the Fortune Global 500. For more [information], go to https://20-
`first.com/thinking.” Sony received the worst possible rating, “Asleep” because Sony did not have
`any females in either Staff or Line leadership roles. There was no female representation at all on
`the Executive Committee. A copy of the report is appended hereto as Exhibit A.
`Sony tolerates and cultivates a work environment that discriminates against female
`15.
`employees, including female employees and those who identify as female.1 Female employees
`are subjected to continuing unlawful disparate treatment in pay and work opportunities. Moreover,
`Sony’s policies and procedures have an ongoing disparate impact on female employees. Sony
`maintains policies and practices regarding the promotion process that promote gender-based
`inequities in title and compensation. Sony maintains policies and practices regarding advancement
`that lead to gender-based inequities favoring males regarding promotions. Sony’s discriminatory
`policies, practices, and procedures include a system where women are denied opportunities for
`advancement at Sony. Sony’s nationwide practices, policies, and procedures result in lower
`compensation for female employees than similarly situated male employees.
` In general, the policies, practices, and procedures that govern the pay and
`16.
`
`1
`Throughout this Complaint, “female” employees is intended to refer to those individuals
`who were designated as female at birth and those who identify as female; individuals who
`“identify as female” can be ascertained by, among other things, pronouns listed in email signature
`lines or other work documents.
`
`-4-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`promotions of female employees lack the sufficient standards, quality controls, implementation
`metrics, transparency, and oversight to ensure equal opportunities for males and females at Sony.
`Because Sony’s management does not provide sufficient oversight or safety
`17.
`measures to protect against intentional and overt discrimination or the disparate impact of facially
`neutral policies and procedures, female employees (including those who are female and those who
`identify as female) suffering from discrimination are without recourse. Whatever complaint and
`compliance policies may exist, lack meaningful controls, standards, implementation metrics, and
`means of redress such that upper management may ignore, disregard, minimize, cover up,
`mishandle, or otherwise fail to respond properly to evidence of discrimination in the workplace.
`Sony’s policies, practices, and procedures are not valid, job-related, or justified by
`18.
`business necessity. Alternative, objective, and more valid procedures are available to Sony that
`would avoid such a disparate impact on female employees. Sony has failed or refused to use such
`alternative procedures.
`Upon information and belief, Sony’s discriminatory employment practices,
`19.
`policies, and procedures are centrally established and implemented at the highest levels of Sony.
`Upon information and belief, Sony’s employment policies, practices, and
`20.
`procedures are not unique or limited to any location; rather, they apply uniformly and
`systematically to employees throughout Sony, occurring as a pattern and practice throughout all
`locations.
`Because of Sony’s systemic pattern and practice of gender discrimination, the
`21.
`Plaintiff and members of the proposed Class have suffered harm including lost compensation,
`back pay, employment benefits, and emotional distress.
`Plaintiff and members of the Class have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at
`22.
`law to redress the rampant and pervasive wrongs alleged herein, and this suit is their only means
`of securing adequate relief. Plaintiff and members of the Class have suffered and are now
`suffering irreparable injury from Sony’s ongoing, unlawful policies, practices, and procedures set
`forth herein, and they will continue to suffer unless those policies, practices, and procedures are
`enjoined by this Court.
`
`-5-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`Rule 23 Class Definitions: Plaintiff proposes to represent the following Classes
`23.
`and Subclasses: The proposed Rule 23 “California Class” consists of: “All individuals employed
`by Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC in California at any time during the time period beginning
`four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action who are either
`(a) female or (b) identify as female.”
`Plaintiff also proposes to represent a “Former Employee Subclass” under Rule 23
`24.
`which consists of members of the California Class who are no longer employed by Sony.
`Upon information and belief, there are more than 40 members of the proposed
`25.
`California Class and Former Employee Subclass.
`Plaintiff is a member of the Class and Subclass.
`26.
`27.
`The systemic gender discrimination described in this Complaint has been, and is,
`continuing in nature.
`Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the class definitions based on discovery or
`28.
`legal developments.
`Efficiency of Class Prosecution of Class Claims: Certification of the proposed
`29.
`classes and subclasses is the most efficient and economical means of resolving the questions of
`law and fact that are common to the claims of the Plaintiff and the Class. The individual claims
`of Plaintiff as a Class Representative, require resolution of the common questions concerning
`whether Sony has engaged in a pattern and/or practice of gender discrimination against its female
`employees, and whether its policies or practices have an adverse effect on the Class. The Class
`Representative seeks remedies to eliminate the adverse effects of such discrimination in her own
`life, career, and working conditions and in the lives, careers, and working conditions of the Class
`members, and to prevent Sony’s continued gender discrimination. The Class Representative has
`standing to seek such relief because of the adverse effect that such discrimination has on her
`individually and on female employees generally. Sony caused Plaintiff’s injuries through its
`discriminatory practices, policies, and procedures and through the disparate impact its policies,
`practices, and procedures have on female employees. These injuries are redressable through
`systemic relief, such as equitable and injunctive relief and other remedies sought in this action. In
`
`-6-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`
`addition, proper relief for Plaintiff’s individual discrimination claims can include retroactive
`promotion and increased compensation. Plaintiff has a personal interest in the policies, practices,
`and procedures implemented at Sony.
`To obtain relief for herself and the Class members, the Class Representative will
`30.
`first establish the existence of systemic gender discrimination as the premise for the relief she
`seeks. Without class certification, the same evidence and issues would be subject to re-litigation
`in a multitude of individual lawsuits with an attendant risk of inconsistent adjudications and
`conflicting obligations.
`Certification of the proposed Class is the most reasonable and efficient means of
`31.
`presenting the evidence and arguments necessary to resolve such questions for the Class
`Representative, the Class members, and Sony.
`Numerosity and Impracticability of Joinder: The Class that the Class
`32.
`Representative seeks to represent is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. In
`addition, joinder is impractical as the employees are physically based in different locations
`throughout California. Fear of retaliation on the part of Sony’s female employees is also likely to
`undermine the possibility of joinder.
`Common Questions of Law and Fact: The prosecution of the claims of the Class
`33.
`Representative will require the adjudication of numerous questions of law and fact common to
`her individual claims and those of the Class she seeks to represent. Plaintiff’s claims are typical
`of the claims pursued on behalf of the Class.
`The common issues of law include, inter alia: (a) whether Sony has engaged in
`34.
`unlawful, systemic gender discrimination in its promotion and compensation policies, practices,
`and procedures; (b) whether the failure to institute adequate standards, quality controls,
`implementation metrics or oversight of those policies, practices, and procedures violates, the
`FEHA, or the California Equal Pay Act (“CEPA”), or the federal Equal Pay Act (“FEPA”), and/or
`other statutes; (c) whether the lack of transparency and opportunities for redress in those systems
`violates the FEHA, the CEPA, the FEPA, and/or other statutes; (d) a determination of the proper
`standard for proving whether Sony’s employment policies had a disparate impact on the Classes
`
`-7-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 8 of 40
`
`
`
`and Subclasses; (e) a determination of the proper standards for proving a pattern or practice of
`discrimination by Sony against its female employees, and under the disparate treatment theory of
`liability for employees; (f) whether Sony’s failure to prevent, investigate, or properly respond to
`evidence and complaints of discrimination in the workplace violates FEHA and other statutes;
`and (g) whether Sony is liable for continuing systemic violations of FEHA and other statutes.
`The common questions of fact include, inter alia: whether Sony has: (a)
`35.
`intentionally held back female employees on its pay scale because Sony does not provide the same
`opportunities for advancement; (b) used a compensation system that lacks appropriate standards,
`implementation metrics, quality controls, transparency, and opportunities for redress; (c) relied
`on compensation criteria that perpetuate discrimination; (d) compensated female employees less
`than similarly-situated male employees in salary and/or promotions; (e) minimized, ignored, or
`covered-up evidence of gender discrimination in the workplace and/or otherwise mishandled the
`investigation of and response to complaints of discrimination; (f) cultivated an indifference to
`evidence of discrimination in the workplace or otherwise minimized, ignored, mishandled, or
`covered up evidence of or complaints of gender discrimination; and (g) otherwise discriminated
`against female employees in the terms and conditions of employment.
`Upon information and belief, Sony’s employment policies, practices, and
`36.
`procedures are not unique or limited to any location; rather, they apply uniformly and
`systematically to employees throughout Sony, occurring as a pattern and practice throughout all
`locations. They thus affect the Class Representative and Class members in the same ways
`regardless of the location in which they work. Discrimination in compensation occurs as a pattern
`and practice throughout Sony.
`Typicality of Claims and Relief Sought: The Class Representative’s claims are
`37.
`typical of the claims of the proposed Class. The Class Representative possesses and asserts each
`of the claims asserted on behalf of the proposed Class. She pursues the same factual and legal
`theories and seeks similar relief.
`Like members of the proposed Classes and Subclasses, the Class Representative is
`38.
`a female who was employed by Sony during the liability period.
`
`-8-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`Differential treatment between male and female employees (i.e., employees who
`39.
`are female or identify as female) occurs as a pattern and practice throughout Sony. Sony
`discriminates against female employees, including those who are female and those who identify
`as female, in compensation and promotion and subjects them to a work culture predominated by
`men. This differential treatment has affected the Class Representative and Class Members in the
`same or similar ways.
`Sony has failed to respond adequately or appropriately to evidence and complaints
`40.
`of discrimination. The Class Representative and Class members have been affected in the same
`or similar ways by Sony’s failure to implement adequate procedures to detect, monitor, and
`correct this pattern and practice of discrimination.
`Sony has failed to create adequate procedures to ensure its management complies
`41.
`with equal employment opportunity laws regarding each of the policies, practices, and procedures
`referenced in this Complaint, and Sony has failed to discipline adequately supervisors when they
`violate anti-discrimination laws. These failures have affected the Class Representative and the
`Class members in the same or similar ways.
`The relief necessary to remedy the Class Representative’s claims is the same as
`42.
`that necessary to remedy the claims of the proposed Class Members.
`The Class Representative seeks the following relief for their individual claims and
`43.
`for the claims of the members of the proposed Classes: (a) a declaratory judgment that Sony has
`engaged in systemic gender discrimination against female employees, including those who are
`female and those who identify as female, by: (i) denying work opportunities to female employees
`on the basis of gender, (ii) paying females less than their male counterparts in base compensation,
`(iii) failing to investigate or respond to evidence of discrimination in the workplace against female
`employees, and (iv) otherwise exposing female employees to differential treatment; (b) a
`permanent injunction against such continuing discriminatory conduct; (c) injunctive relief that
`effects a restructuring of Sony’s policies, practices, and procedures for promoting and awarding
`compensation to female employees; (d) equitable relief that effects a restructuring of Sony’s
`compensation system so female employees receive the compensation they would have been paid
`
`-9-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`in the absence of Sony’s discrimination; (e) back pay, front pay, reinstatement, and other equitable
`remedies necessary to make female employees whole from Sony’s past discrimination; (f)
`compensatory damages; (g) punitive damages to deter Sony from engaging in similar
`discriminatory practices in the future; and (h) attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.
`Adequacy of Representation: The Class Representative’s
`interests are
`44.
`coextensive with those of the members of the proposed Class. The Class Representative seeks to
`remedy Sony’s discriminatory policies, practices, and procedures so female employees will not
`receive disparate pay and differential treatment.
`The Class Representative is willing and able to represent the proposed Class fairly
`45.
`and vigorously as she pursues similar individual claims in this action.
`The Class Representative has retained counsel sufficiently qualified, experienced,
`46.
`and able to conduct this litigation and to meet the time and fiscal demands required to litigate an
`employment discrimination class action of this size and complexity. The combined interests,
`experience, and resources of the Class Representative and her counsel to litigate competently the
`individual and class claims at issue in this case clearly satisfy the adequacy of representation
`requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4).
`Requirements of Rule 23(b)(2): Sony has acted on grounds generally applicable
`47.
`to the Class Representative and the proposed Class by adopting and following systemic policies,
`practices, and procedures that discriminate on the basis of gender. Gender discrimination is
`Sony’s standard operating procedure rather than a sporadic occurrence.
`Sony has also acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class
`48.
`Representative and the proposed Class by, inter alia: (a) systematically, intentionally, or
`knowingly denying work opportunities for women in favor of similarly situated males; (b) using
`an assignment system that lacks meaningful or appropriate standards, implementation metrics,
`quality controls, transparency, and opportunities for redress: (c) compensating women less than
`similarly situated males in salary; (c) systematically, intentionally, or knowingly compensating
`women less than similarly situated male employees, including a difference in salary; (d)
`minimizing, ignoring, or covering up evidence of gender discrimination in the workplace and/or
`
`-10-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`otherwise mishandling the investigation of and response to complaints of discrimination; (e)
`cultivating an indifference to evidence of discrimination in the workplace or otherwise
`minimizing, ignoring, mishandling, or covering up evidence of or complaints of gender
`discrimination: and (f) otherwise discriminating against women in the terms and conditions of
`employment as employees.
`Sony’s policies, practices, and procedures with respect to compensation have led
`49.
`to gender discrimination and stratification. The systemic means of accomplishing such gender-
`based stratification include, but are not limited to, Sony’s policies, practices, and procedures for
`awarding base compensation, bonus pay, and opportunities for promotions to female employees.
`These practices and procedures all suffer from a lack of transparency, adequate quality standards,
`and controls; sufficient implementation metrics; and opportunities for redress or challenge. Sony’s
`systemic discrimination and refusals to act on nondiscriminatory grounds justify the requested
`injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
`Injunctive, declaratory, and affirmative relief are a predominant form of relief
`50.
`sought in this case. Entitlement to declaratory, injunctive, and affirmative relief flows directly and
`automatically from proof of Sony’s systemic gender discrimination. In turn, entitlement to
`declaratory, injunctive, and affirmative relief forms the factual and legal predicate for recovery
`by the Class Representative and Class members of monetary and non-monetary remedies for
`individual losses caused by the systemic discrimination, as well as their recovery of compensatory
`and punitive damages.
`Requirements of Rule 23(b)(3): The common issues of fact and law affecting the
`51.
`claims of the Class Representative and proposed Class members—including, but not limited to,
`the common issues identified above— predominate over any issues affecting only individual
`claims. The common issues include whether Sony has engaged in gender discrimination against
`female employees.
`A class action is superior to other available means for fairly and efficiently
`52.
`adjudicating the claims of the Class Representative and members of the proposed Class.
`By virtue of the pattern and practice of discrimination at Sony, the Class
`53.
`
`-11-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`Representative and Class members are eligible for monetary remedies for losses caused by the
`systemic discrimination, including back pay, front pay, reinstatement, compensatory damages and
`other relief.
`In addition, or in the alternative, the Court may grant “partial” or “issue”
`54.
`certification under Rules 23(c)(4). Resolution of common questions of fact and law would
`materially advance the litigation for all Class members.
`COLLECTIVE ALLEGATIONS UNDER THE EQUAL PAY ACT
`The proposed collective action “Nationwide Class” consists of: “All individuals
`55.
`employed by Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC in the United States at any time during the
`time period beginning three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in
`this action who are either (a) female or (b) identify as female.”
`Plaintiff alleges that the violations of the Equal Pay Act were willful, deliberate,
`56.
`and systematic.
`Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of the Complaint alleging class-based
`57.
`discrimination. Plaintiff brings collective claims under the Equal Pay Act pursuant to Section
`16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), on behalf of all members of
`the Nationwide Class.
`The Nationwide Class seeks compensation because female employees (a) were not
`58.
`compensated equally to male employees who had substantially similar job classifications,
`functions, titles, and/or duties, (b) were not compensated equally to male employees who
`performed substantially similar work, and/or (c) were denied equal compensation to similarly
`situated male employees by being held back to lesser pay levels than male employees who
`performed substantially similar work and had substantially similar experience.
`Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class are similarly situated with respect to their
`59.
`claims that Sony paid and promoted them less than their male counterparts.
`There is a common nexus of fact and law suggesting that Plaintiff and the
`60.
`Nationwide Class members were discriminated against in the same manner.
`Questions at issue in the case include: a) Whether Sony unlawfully awarded less
`61.
`
`-12-
`Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC
`Class and Collective Action Complaint
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Tel: (415) 580-2574 | Email: help@ilglegal.com
`
`ILG Legal Office, P.C.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09054 Document 1 Filed 11/22/21 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`in pay to female employees than to similarly qualified male employees; b) Whether Sony
`unlawfully awarded less in bonuses to female employees than similarly qualified male employees;
`c) Whether Sony unlawfully assigned and continues to assign female employees into positions
`with lesser pay and other compensation than similarly qualified male employees; d) Whether
`Sony’s resulting failure to compensate female employees on a par with comparable male
`employees was willful within the meaning of the Equal Pay Act.
`Claims for violations of the Equal Pay Act may be brought and maintained as an
`62.
`“opt-in” collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), for all claims asserted by the Nationwide
`Class who opt-in to this action because Plaintiff’s claims are similar to the claims of the
`Nationwide Class members.
`Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class members (a) are similarly situated; (b) have
`63.
`substantially similar job classifications, functions, titles, and/or duties; and (c) are subject to
`Sony’s common policy and practice of gender discrimination in failing to compensate female
`employees commensurate with compensation given to male employees who perform substantially
`equal work.
`FACTS REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S INDIVIDUAL CAUSES OF ACTION
`64. Ms. Majo joined