While Sony was taken to court last year, the courts finally ruled in favor of the firm and dismissed all complaints.
Last year, Sony was accused of “harassment, unfair dismissal, discrimination and other unequal pay”, but in the end, the complaints are rejected and Sony comes out unscathed.
No evidence, no judgment
Following the two complaints filed by a former employee, Emma Majo, who said she was fired after filing a complaint for “bias and gender discrimination”, Sony appealed asking for an outright dismissal of the charges.
During the trial, and after the testimonies of eight other women concerning discriminatory attitudes within the company, Emma Majo had asked to have her personal complaint transformed into a class action. Except that for Sony, the claims filed by Ms Majo as a class action, concern only a “highly individual” case and “a banal and unenforceable personal activity”and therefore could not be the subject of such a procedure.
Sony asked for rejection from the FAC [un premier groupe de plaintes] under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), primarily on the grounds that the plaintiff only alleges trivial and unenforceable personal activity and therefore cannot plausibly plead. He also asked for the protests to be dismissed under Rule 12(f) on the basis that the allegations are “highly individual” and do not establish that collective or class action is procedurally appropriate.
After reflexion, federal court granted Sony’s motion and dismissed all complaints subject to federal law and has dissociated itself from those concerning the State.
Court grants motion to dismiss (with leave to amend) for most claims because the allegations are mostly conclusive, but the following individual claims are not affected: statutory and common law wrongful termination, whistleblower retaliation according to Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5(b), and retaliation under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). However, since the court denies the previous federal claim, it does not have jurisdiction over the state claims and therefore denies all other claims. The court also rejects the motion to quash without prejudice because it is premature to decide it on the basis of an insufficiently formulated complaint.
According to the court, Emma Majo “only recited the elements of the claim and did not allege any specific facts” In other words, for the moment, the case is closed and only the opening of a new file supplemented by tangible evidence and other testimonies, can relaunch it.