Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 1 of 70
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Jahan C. Sagafi (Cal. Bar No. 224887)
`OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
`One California Street, 12th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 638-8800
`Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
`E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com
`
`
`Patricia Shea (pro hac vice)
`Katherine A. Roe (pro hac vice)
`COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS
`OF AMERICA
`501 3rd Street, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 434-1100
`E-mail: pats@cwa-union.org
`E-mail: aroe@cwa-union.org
`
`
`P. David Lopez (pro hac vice)
`Peter Romer-Friedman (pro hac vice)
`Pooja Shethji (pro hac vice)
`OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave. NW
`Second Floor West
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 847-4400
`Facsimile: (646) 952-9114
`E-mail: pdl@outtengolden.com
`E-mail: prf@outtengolden.com
`E-mail: pshethji@outtengolden.com
`
`Adam T. Klein (pro hac vice)
`Robert N. Fisher (Cal. Bar No. 302919)
`Jared W. Goldman (pro hac vice)
`OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
`685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
`New York, NY 10017
`Telephone: (212) 245-1000
`Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
`E-mail: atk@outtengolden.com
`E-mail: rfisher@outtengolden.com
`E-mail: jgoldman@outtengolden.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Plaintiff Class and Collective
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF
`AMERICA, LINDA BRADLEY, MAURICE
`ANSCOMBE, LURA CALLAHAN,
`RICHARD HAYNIE, and others similarly
`situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`T-MOBILE US, INC., and AMAZON.COM,
`INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 17-cv-07232-BLF
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION
`COMPLAINT
`
`
` DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 2 of 70
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In this action, the Communications Workers of America (“CWA”), Linda Bradley,
`1.
`Maurice Anscombe, Lura Callahan, and Richard Haynie (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) seek to
`vindicate the rights of older workers to be free of age discrimination in employment advertising,
`recruitment, and hiring. They bring this action against T-Mobile US, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) and
`Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), major American employers that, upon information and belief,
`routinely exclude older workers from receiving their employment and recruiting ads on Facebook,
`and thus deny older workers job opportunities. These companies eliminate older workers from
`receiving job ads by specifically targeting their employment ads to younger workers via Facebook’s
`ad platform. And these employers state in their job advertisements that they are interested in
`reaching younger workers who fall into a specific age band of Facebook users who were selected to
`receive the job advertisements, thereby encouraging younger workers to apply for various jobs and
`discouraging older workers from doing the same.
`For example, T-Mobile sent the following ad via Facebook to recruit prospective job
`2.
`applicants for its stores nationwide, and in doing so, upon information and belief, limited the
`population receiving the ad to 18- to 38-year-olds. The screenshot to the right shows that T-Mobile
`sent the job ad because T-Mobile “wants to reach people ages 18 to 38 who live or were recently
`in the United States.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 3 of 70
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs allege that T-Mobile and Amazon have violated federal, state, and local
`3.
`laws that prohibit age discrimination in employment advertising, recruiting, and hiring, upon
`information and belief. Plaintiffs seek an injunction to stop Defendants from engaging in unlawful
`age discrimination in employment, as well as other forms of relief for older workers who have been
`denied job opportunities due to the unlawful and harmful practices described in this Complaint.
`Fifty years before this action was filed, on December 15, 1967, Congress enacted the
`4.
`Age Discrimination in Employment Act to prohibit and eradicate systemic age discrimination that
`older workers faced in the workplace. See Pub. L. No. 90-202, § 2 (Dec. 15, 1967). Congress
`found that older workers faced discrimination in hiring and other employment opportunities, and
`that the arbitrary setting of age limits led to higher unemployment rates for older workers. Id.; 29
`U.S.C. § 621. To combat this discrimination, Congress prohibited employers and employment
`agencies from discriminating based on age in employment advertising, recruiting, hiring, and other
`employment opportunities, and Congress made it unlawful to send or publish employment ads that
`discriminate or indicate a preference or limitation based on age. 29 U.S.C. § 623(a), (b), (e).
`Agreeing with Congress that age discrimination in employment was a systemic
`5.
`problem, numerous states, including California and Ohio, the District of Columbia, and many
`counties, cities, and towns enacted similar prohibitions on age discrimination in employment.
`Sadly, this case reveals that age discrimination remains an entrenched facet of the
`6.
`American workplace. Defendants—major American companies—apparently believe that it is
`appropriate and desirable to exclude American workers from job opportunities solely based on their
`age.
`
`In every corner of America, when an older worker loses her job at a coal mine, a
`7.
`steel mill, a call center, a hospital, or an office, and she looks for a new job using the internet and
`social media to find job opportunities, she likely has no idea that major American companies are
`purposely refusing to tell her about the next job opportunity that may help her feed her family or
`make her next mortgage payment to stave off a devastating foreclosure.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 4 of 70
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Due to this lawsuit, older workers may finally understand why their job searches—
`8.
`that have migrated online in recent years—are more difficult than they ought to be. In fact, their
`job searches are more difficult than our country’s anti-discrimination laws allow. If this lawsuit
`succeeds, American workers’ job searches may be a lot easier in the future.
`Harm has already been done, and it continues, as Defendants have expressly and
`9.
`blatantly excluded older workers from receiving job advertisements and recruitment via Facebook’s
`paid ad platform. As a result, these companies have denied millions of workers the opportunity to
`learn about and obtain employment opportunities, upon information and belief.
`10. When selecting the population of Facebook users who will receive employment ads,
`Defendants have routinely focused their ads on prospective applicants who are in age bands that
`exclude many workers who are 40-years-old or greater, e.g., targeting workers who are “ages 18 to
`38,” “ages 22 to 45,” or “ages 21 to 55,” thereby preventing older workers from receiving
`advertising and recruitment for job opportunities, upon information and belief.
`This pattern or practice of discrimination denies job opportunities to individuals who
`11.
`are searching for and interested in jobs, reduces the number of older workers who apply for jobs
`with the offending employers and employment agencies, and depresses the number of older workers
`who are hired by Defendants, causing working families to lose out on wages, benefits, and the
`dignity that comes with a good job. In addition, these practices make older workers’ job searches
`take far longer than they should, causing economic harm and other forms of distress to them and
`their families. For the positions advertised, these age-based restrictions show that the selections for
`these positions are uniformly motivated by discriminatory animus against older workers.
`This practice is not just harmful to older workers—it is unlawful. By actively
`12.
`excluding workers who are older than a certain age from receiving employment ads and by stating
`in the ads that the employers want to reach younger workers, Defendants clearly state a preference
`for recruiting and hiring younger workers over older workers; they discriminate against older
`workers in their advertising, recruitment, and hiring process; and they limit, segregate, and classify
`job applicants based on their age, all in violation of federal, state, and local laws that prohibit age
`4
`
`
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 5 of 70
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`discrimination in employment.
`13. While advocates for older workers and civil rights have long suspected that
`employers screen out older workers from the employment pipeline, evidence from Facebook’s ad
`platform confirms that, approximately 50 years after the passage of the ADEA, age discrimination,
`rather than equal opportunity, appears to be Defendants’ common practice in employment
`advertising, recruiting and hiring, upon information and belief.
`Over the past five years, employment advertising, recruiting, and hiring has
`14.
`undergone a seismic shift. Like so many other parts of our society, Facebook and other social
`media platforms have become a dominant force in the national labor market. In fact, social media
`has become a primary means for big and small employers to identify, recruit, and hire workers.
`Like many technologies in the modern economy, Facebook has an unfathomable
`15.
`capacity to make workers aware of economic opportunities, such as jobs. Advertising on
`Facebook’s paid ad platform could make it easy for workers to regularly receive employment
`opportunities on an equal basis. For tens of millions of forgotten workers whose plants have
`shuttered, hospitals have closed, and retail stores have been driven out of business by e-commerce,
`receiving ads for job openings via Facebook could be a godsend—a ray of hope at the end of a long,
`dark tunnel in which American workers have been discarded by national companies that place profit
`over people.
`Upon information and belief, Facebook’s powerful ad platform has been used as a
`16.
`mechanism for age discrimination, and Defendants have coordinated with Facebook to exclude an
`enormous portion of the American labor force from receiving job ads, recruitment, and hiring
`opportunities.
`The basic practice at issue in this case is simple. When an employer or an
`17.
`employment agency creates, purchases, and sends a Facebook ad to make workers aware of job
`opportunities and encourage them to apply for various jobs, Facebook requires the employers or
`employment agencies to select the population of Facebook users who will be eligible to receive the
`ad, including the age range of the users who will receive the ad. Following Facebook’s
`5
`
`
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 6 of 70
`
`
`
`
`encouragement to narrowly focus ad campaigns on the “right people,” including by targeting
`younger people, upon information and belief, Defendants have routinely focused their Facebook
`employment ads on users who are under 40-years-old (and sometimes on users who are under
`higher age thresholds). This prevents workers who are above the selected age threshold from
`receiving employment ads and pursuing relevant job opportunities.
`This case and the facts alleged should not come as a surprise. The public, Facebook,
`18.
`and Defendants have known that Facebook’s ad platform enabled and encouraged employers and
`employment agencies to exclude older workers from receiving job ads. In November 2016,
`ProPublica revealed that Facebook’s platform made it possible for African Americans, Latinos, and
`Asian Americans to be excluded from receiving ads for various economic opportunities, such as
`housing or employment ads.1 At that time, it was widely known that other protected characteristics,
`such as age, could be used to exclude Facebook users from receiving employment ads.
`In addition, in the wake of federal court litigation that was filed in 2016 over
`19.
`Facebook’s ad platform being used to exclude people of color from receiving job advertisements
`due to their race or national origin, Defendants in this case knew and/or should have known that it
`was or could be unlawful to exclude older workers from receiving their job advertisements via
`Facebook. Nevertheless, upon information and belief, Defendants continued to exclude older
`workers from receiving their job advertisements via Facebook and making statements on Facebook
`that they wanted to reach workers within younger age bands. And upon information and belief,
`Defendants did not attempt to offset the harm of targeting of younger workers with job
`advertisements via Facebook by similarly targeting older workers with job advertisements via
`Facebook.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Julia Angwin & Terry Parris Jr., Facebook Lets Advertisers Exclude Users by Race, ProPublica
`(Oct. 28, 2016, 1:00 PM), https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-lets-advertisers-exclude-
`users-by-race.
`
`
`
`6
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 7 of 70
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this action pursuant to 28
`20.
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), as the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5 million, exclusive
`of interest and costs, and it is a class action in which members of the proposed Plaintiff Class are
`citizens of different states than at least one defendant. Plaintiffs Bradley and Callahan are citizens
`of Ohio, Plaintiff Anscombe is a citizen of Maryland, Plaintiff Haynie is a citizen of California, and
`Defendant T-Mobile US, Inc. is a citizen of Delaware and Washington.
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ and the collective
`21.
`members’ ADEA claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1331. The court also has subject matter
`jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as the state law claims
`are so related to the federal law claims that they form part of the same case or controversy under
`Article III of the U.S. Constitution.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over T-Mobile and Amazon because upon
`22.
`information and belief, T-Mobile and Amazon conduct substantial business throughout this District;
`employ thousands of workers in this District and California; intentionally created and purchased
`discriminatory ads in this District via Facebook’s ad platform that is located in this District;
`interacted with Facebook’s employees who are located in this District to create, purchase, and
`publish discriminatory ads, upon information and belief; and intentionally sent such discriminatory
`ads from this District to Facebook users who are located in this District, California, and throughout
`the United States, and those advertisements intentionally solicited workers to apply for positions
`throughout the State of California, including in this District.
` Upon information and belief, during the events that are challenged in this action,
`23.
`Amazon employed tens of thousands of employees in California and intentionally sent Facebook
`advertisements throughout the nation (including advertisements sent to persons located in and
`outside of California, such as the District of Columbia, Ohio, and Maryland) that advertised
`thousands to tens of thousands of jobs that are located in California, including jobs that are located
`in this District, and Amazon excluded older workers from receiving those ads. Upon information
`7
`
`
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 8 of 70
`
`
`
`
`and belief, during the events that are challenged in this action, Amazon operated 23 Fulfillment and
`Sortation Centers in California, 9 Prime Now Hubs in California, 2 Tech Hubs in California, 8
`Campus Pick-Up locations in California, and 4 Amazon Books stores in California. Indeed,
`Amazon has stated that it has created more than 39,000 full-time jobs in California.2
`Upon information and belief, during the events that are challenged in this action, T-
`24.
`Mobile employed thousands of employees in California (including in this District) and intentionally
`sent Facebook advertisements throughout the nation (including advertisements sent to persons
`located in and outside of California and this District, such as the District of Columbia, Ohio, and
`Maryland) that advertised thousands of jobs that are located in California, including jobs that are
`located in this District, and T-Mobile excluded older workers from receiving those ads, including
`workers in this District. Upon information and belief, during the events challenged in this action,
`T-Mobile operated more than 700 locations in California.
`Upon information and belief, Amazon and T-Mobile each sent at least hundreds of
`25.
`thousands of age-restricted advertisements to Facebook users throughout the United States,
`including users in California and in this District, advertising positions in California (including in
`this District), the District of Columbia, Ohio, and many other states. When Amazon and T-Mobile
`excluded older workers from receiving job advertisements about positions in California and this
`District, they caused harm to older workers throughout the United States who were deterred from
`seeking positions in California, and Amazon and T-Mobile knew that older workers in and outside
`of California (including in this District) would be harmed by such discriminatory advertising.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants used Facebook’s ad platform to create,
`26.
`develop, purchase, and send their job advertisements to Facebook users in order to solicit and
`recruit workers to apply for positions in and outside of California. Upon information and belief, in
`sending age-restricted job advertisements that excluded older workers from receiving such ads and
`in stating in the advertisements that Defendants wanted to reach Facebook users between specific
`
`
`2 Amazon’s Economic Impact Across the U.S., About Amazon,
`https://www.aboutamazon.com/investing-in-the-u-s (last visited Aug. 20, 2018).
`8
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 9 of 70
`
`
`
`
`ages, Defendants took such actions, published or made such advertisements, and/or caused
`Facebook to publish or make such discriminatory advertisements.
`Upon information and belief, Defendants agreed to follow the same terms and
`27.
`conditions of the same contract with Facebook by agreeing to Facebook’s Statement of Rights and
`Responsibilities and/or Terms of Service (“Facebook contract”).3 The Facebook contract requires
`its users, including Defendants who have advertised jobs on Facebook and the members of the
`Plaintiff Class who have used Facebook, to resolve any disputes related to their use of Facebook in
`the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo
`County, to “submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of litigating all such
`claims” related to their use of Facebook, and that any dispute over the use of Facebook will be
`resolved under California law. In addition, the Facebook contract mandates that the advertisers not
`engage in any conduct that is “discriminatory,” a requirement that all Defendants have violated by
`virtue of the practices challenged in this action. By agreeing to the Facebook contract under which
`Defendants agreed to submit to the personal jurisdiction of this Court and resolve all disputes in this
`Court related to their use of Facebook, Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction and venue in
`this Court and have waived any argument that exercising personal jurisdiction over them with
`respect to their discriminatory advertising on Facebook is improper, unlawful, or unconstitutional.
`By excluding older workers from receiving job advertisements via the same Facebook ad platform,
`Defendants collectively altered, distorted, manipulated, and harmed national, regional, and local
`labor markets and job opportunities for the Plaintiff Class Members, including the labor market for
`workers in this District and California, and accordingly Defendants lengthened the time of older
`workers to obtain employment, including employees inside and outside of California who have
`sought employment in California and this District.
`Declaratory and injunctive relief are sought and authorized by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201
`28.
`and 2202.
`
`
`3 Terms of Service, Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/terms.php (last visited Aug. 20, 2018).
`9
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 10 of 70
`
`
`
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), as upon information
`29.
`and belief, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in
`this District, where Defendants created and purchased discriminatory ads via Facebook’s ad
`platform that is located in this District, and sent such discriminatory ads from this District to
`Facebook users who are located in this District and throughout the United States, including for
`positions within this District. Plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative remedies with respect
`to their federal ADEA claims and their California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)
`claims. On May 10, 2018, Plaintiffs Bradley, Maurice Anscombe, and Lura Callahan received right
`to sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regarding their
`ADEA charges against Defendants, and on May 22, 2018, they received right to sue letters from the
`California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) regarding their FEHA charges
`against Defendants. On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff Haynie received right to sue letters from the EEOC
`regarding his ADEA charges against Defendants and from the DFEH regarding his FEHA charges
`against Defendants.
`
`THE PARTIES
`The Communications Workers of America is an international labor union
`30.
`representing over 700,000 workers in a broad range of industries, including telecommunications,
`cable, information technology, airline, manufacturing, print and broadcast news media, education,
`public service, and healthcare, among others. CWA’s central purpose is protecting the rights of
`workers through collective bargaining and public advocacy. CWA’s headquarters are located in
`Washington, DC. CWA also has offices, local unions, and members in California, and is
`accordingly a citizen of California. Its members work, live, and seek employment throughout the
`United States. CWA members reflect an impressive diversity of skills, interests, work experience,
`and talent, making them a rich pool of potential candidates for job opportunities. As a union, CWA
`educates its members about the value of social media for networking and advocacy. As a result,
`CWA members, including the over 160,000 who are over age 40, include hundreds of thousands of
`Facebook users. CWA has thousands of members who are members of the proposed Class,
`10
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 11 of 70
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`including Plaintiffs Bradley, Callahan, and Anscombe. Numerous members of CWA who are also
`members of the proposed Class reside in this District and elsewhere in California, and they have
`been denied advertisements about jobs at Amazon and T-Mobile within the State of California
`concerning jobs in this District.
`Plaintiff Linda Bradley is a 45-year-old woman who lives in Franklin County, Ohio.
`31.
`Prior to the filing of the Original Complaint, she was laid off from her longstanding job at a call
`center in Franklin County, Ohio. Ms. Bradley is and has been a member of CWA during the period
`in which she has been affected by the discrimination she challenges in this case. She regularly uses
`Facebook and has used Facebook to seek employment opportunities. In fact, on the one occasion
`that Ms. Bradley received an employment ad via Facebook on her Facebook News Feed, she
`contacted the employer to inquire about an open position. Ms. Bradley has decades of customer
`service and sales experience in the telecommunications industry and the healthcare industry. She
`has skills in a range of areas, including interpersonal communication skills and leadership skills.
`Ms. Bradley graduated from high school and has attended undergraduate courses. Upon
`information and belief, due to her skills and experience, Ms. Bradley would be qualified for a range
`of positions at T-Mobile, including but not limited to Account Care Expert and Customer Service
`Representative Trainer; Ms. Bradley would be qualified for a range of positions at Amazon,
`including but not limited to Customer Service Associate, and Seller Support Associate. Upon
`information and belief, T-Mobile and Amazon used age-restricted job advertisements published on
`Facebook’s ad platform during the relevant period to advertise, recruit, and hire for some or all of
`these positions, including for positions in California and Ohio. Upon information and belief,
`Defendants’ employment advertisements were intended to draw readers of the advertisements into
`their online career portals in which such positions and numerous other positions were advertised so
`that such readers would apply for the listed positions. Ms. Bradley is willing to work not just in
`Ohio but beyond her local geographic area.
`Upon information and belief, Ms. Bradley has routinely been denied employment
`32.
`advertisements and recruitment that similarly situated workers have received in Ohio and
`11
`
`
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 12 of 70
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`throughout the nation, including employment ads and recruitment from T-Mobile and Amazon. If
`Ms. Bradley had received such ads from each Defendant, she would have clicked on those
`employment ads in order to learn more about those opportunities and she would have pursued them.
`Because Ms. Bradley did not receive such ads from Defendants, she did not learn about specific job
`opportunities at those employers and was thus deterred from applying for such job opportunities.
`Upon information and belief, Ms. Bradley was qualified to perform one or more job at each of the
`Defendants that was offered during the time period at issue in this case (including but not limited to
`January through December 2017). Upon information and belief, Ms. Bradley was denied the
`opportunity to receive job advertisements from Amazon and T-Mobile because of her age,
`including the job advertisements of Amazon and T-Mobile that advertised positions in California.
`Plaintiff Maurice Anscombe is a 57-year-old man who lives in Baltimore County,
`33.
`Maryland. Mr. Anscombe is and has been a member of CWA during the period in which he has
`been affected by the discrimination he challenges in this case. He is seeking employment, having
`previously worked as a cable technician for almost two decades and, before that, in law
`enforcement. He regularly uses Facebook and has used Facebook to seek employment
`opportunities. Mr. Anscombe has skills in a range of areas, including telecommunications
`networks, computers, law enforcement, and corporate security. He has an associate degree in
`Applied Science from Bronx Community College. Upon information and belief, due to his skills
`and experience, Mr. Anscombe would be qualified for a range of positions at T-Mobile, including
`but not limited to Associate Installation Technician and Installation Supervisor; Mr. Anscombe
`would be qualified for a range of positions at Amazon, including but not limited to Cabling
`Technician, Network Technician, Data Center Technician, and Loss Prevention Specialist. Upon
`information and belief, T-Mobile and Amazon used age-restricted job advertisements published on
`Facebook’s ad platform during the relevant period to advertise, recruit, solicit, and hire for some or
`all of these positions, including for positions in California, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and
`Virginia. Upon information and belief, Defendants’ employment advertisements were intended to
`draw readers of the advertisements into their online career portals in which such positions and
`12
`
`
`
`FOURTH AMENDED CLASS AND
`COLLECTIVE ACTION COMPLAINT
`CASE NO. 17-CV-07232-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:17-cv-07232-BLF Document 140 Filed 06/05/19 Page 13 of 70
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`numerous other positions were advertised so that such readers would apply for the listed positions.
`Mr. Anscombe is willing to work not just in Maryland, but also beyond his local geographic area.
`For example, Mr. Anscombe has searched for work in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and the
`D.C. Metropolitan Area (which includes Virginia) when he was regularly using Facebook, and has
`been interested in receiving and responding to job opportunities in these and other places.
`Upon information and belief, Mr. Anscombe has routinely been denied employment
`34.
`advertisements and recruitment that similarly situated workers have received in Maryland and
`throughout the nation, including employment ads and recruitment from T-Mobile and Amazon. If
`Mr. Anscombe had received such ads from each of the Defendants, he would have clicked on those
`employment ads in order to learn more about those opportunities and he would have pursued them.
`The only employment ad that Mr. Anscombe recalls receiving on his Facebook News Feed was via
`a closed group in Facebook for former law enforcement officials and was sent by a company
`recruiting former military and law enforcement officials. Because Mr. Anscombe did not receive
`such ads from the Defendants, he did not learn about specific job opportunities at those employers
`and was thus deterred from applying for such job opportunities. Upon information and belief, Mr.
`Anscombe was qualified to perform one or more job at each of the Defendants that was offered
`during the time period at issue in this case (including but not limited to January through December
`2017). Upon information and belief, Mr. Anscombe was denied the opportunity to receive job
`advertisements from Amazon and T-Mobile because of his age, including advertisements of
`Amazon and T-Mobile that