Long Time Disney Employee Filed California Discrimination Class Action
/
A longtime Disney employee filed a California lawsuit alleging labor law violations that eventually expanded into a class action, including 9,000 female Disney workers (current and former).
Case: Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.
Court: Los Angeles Superior Court
Case No.: 19STCV10974
Who is the Plaintiff in the Case?
The lead plaintiff in the case is LaRonda Rasmussen, a longtime Disney employee. After Rasmussen filed the California lawsuit alleging multiple labor law violations, additional plaintiffs joined the action. Ultimately, the employment law complaint expanded into a class action that involved approximately 9,000 current and former Disney employees in California.
Who is the Defendant in the Case?
The primary defendant in the case is The Walt Disney Company, but additional affiliated Disney entities operating in California are also listed as defendants.
The Allegations: Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.
The plaintiffs alleged that Disney systematically paid female employees less than male employees performing substantially similar work and engaged in broader gender-based employment discrimination. Claims included:
Violation of California Equal Pay Act (Labor Code § 1197.5)
Gender discrimination under California FEHA
Failure to pay all wages due upon separation
Violations of Labor Code § 232 (pay secrecy/pay discussion protections)
Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200)
PAGA claims
Waiting time penalties under various Labor Code provisions
Individual promotion-denial claims by certain named plaintiffs
The History of the Case: Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.
In the complaint, Rasmussen alleged that during her employment at Disney, she had six male co-workers with the same title who received substantially higher pay, including one male co-worker with less experience who received $20,000 more annually than Rasmussen. In support of these claims, the plaintiffs pointed out that Disney maintains a company-wide job classification framework that allegedly clearly demonstrated that employees were performing “substantially similar work,” and made it easy to compare compensation across thousands of Disney employees and job positions. During the case, an industrial-organizational psychology expert also testified that Disney's job-family and job-level system was specifically designed to classify substantially similar work. The plaintiffs' economist estimated that women were collectively underpaid by around $150 million.
Actions Taken by the Court in the Discrimination Class Action Suit:
Lawsuit filed in 2019.
Fourth Amended Complaint filed April 15, 2021.
In December 2023, Judge Elihu Berle granted class certification for Equal Pay Act claims, allowing approximately 9,000 women to proceed as a class.
Disney's challenges to plaintiffs' expert evidence were rejected.
In November 2024, the parties reached a proposed $43.25 million settlement.
Preliminary approval was granted in 2025, followed by final approval later in 2025.
The Main Question the Court Considered in the Case:
The central legal question in Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al was:
Can female employees establish class-wide Equal Pay Act violations by relying on Disney's company-wide job classification system to show that employees performed "substantially similar work," despite the wide variety of job titles and responsibilities across Disney's business units?
The court also had to consider 1) whether common evidence could prove pay disparities on a class-wide basis, 2) whether Disney's compensation practices created systemic gender-based disparities, and 3) whether California's Equal Pay Act permits broad comparisons across similarly classified positions rather than requiring identical job titles.
What Do California Workers Need to Know?
For California workers, the Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al. case reinforces that employees need not have identical job titles to pursue Equal Pay Act claims and demonstrates that large-scale pay-equity class actions can be certified when common compensation systems affect many workers. The history of the case also serves as encouragement for employees to discuss compensation and consider potential payment disparities.
The Key Takeaway from this California Class Action:
This case became one of California's most significant equal-pay class actions, with plaintiffs alleging that Disney systematically underpaid female employees performing substantially similar work. The court's willingness to certify a broad class based on Disney's own job-classification structure underscores the growing importance of pay-equity compliance and compensation transparency for California employers. The resulting $43.25 million settlement further demonstrates the substantial financial exposure associated with alleged systemic pay disparities.
FAQs: Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Company et al.
Q: Can employees with different job titles still have a California Equal Pay Act claim?
A: Yes. California's Equal Pay Act focuses on whether employees perform "substantially similar work," not whether they share identical job titles. In Rasmussen v. The Walt Disney Company, a central issue was whether Disney's internal job classification system demonstrated that female employees were performing substantially similar work to higher-paid male employees across various positions.
Q: What is considered workplace pay discrimination in California?
A: Workplace pay discrimination may occur when an employer pays employees differently based on protected characteristics such as sex, race, or other protected statuses rather than legitimate business factors. California law prohibits employers from paying employees less for substantially similar work based on gender and provides remedies for workers who experience unlawful compensation disparities.
Q: Can employees discuss their wages with coworkers in California?
A: Generally, yes. California law protects employees who discuss wages and compensation with coworkers. Employers are prohibited from enforcing policies that unlawfully restrict employees from discussing pay, which can help workers identify potential pay disparities and Equal Pay Act violations.
Q: What is an employment class action lawsuit?
A: An employment class action allows a group of employees with similar legal claims against the same employer to pursue those claims together in a single lawsuit. Class actions can be particularly effective when alleged employment violations affect large groups of workers, such as claims involving company-wide compensation practices, discrimination, or wage-and-hour violations.
Q: How do courts determine whether employees perform substantially similar work?
A: Courts typically evaluate factors such as skill, effort, responsibility, working conditions, and the employer's organizational structure. The plaintiffs relied heavily on Disney's job classification framework to argue that employees across different departments and positions were performing substantially similar work for Equal Pay Act purposes.
Q: Where can California employees get help with equal pay and workplace discrimination claims?
A: Employees who believe they have experienced unequal pay, workplace discrimination, or other employment law violations should consult an experienced California employment attorney. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP represents California workers in Equal Pay Act claims, workplace discrimination matters, and employment class actions involving unlawful compensation practices and systemic workplace inequities.
Unequal pay and workplace discrimination can have lasting effects on employees' careers and financial well-being. Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP represents California workers in Equal Pay Act claims, workplace discrimination cases, and employment class actions involving unlawful compensation practices and systemic workplace inequities.
