Disney’s Legal Woes Mount As Exec Notes “Pay Equity Nightmare” in Unsealed Court Docs

In 2014, Nancy Dolan — manager of creative music marketing at Disney — was denied a promotion to director over the objections of her supervisor, president of music Mitchell Leib, who said she was “worth her weight in gold.” He urged higher-ups to reconsider the decision.

“Nancy back-filled and took over the entire position of an EVP more than three years ago for a fraction of the cost and is invaluable to me,” Mitchell wrote in an email to Sean Bailey, president of Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production, according to newly unsealed court filings in a pay bias lawsuit against the company.

Pointing to “terrible scores” in an employee satisfaction survey among women frustrated with opportunities for career advancement, Mitchell added, “You need only look at Nancy to see the inequity.” He stressed he had a “hard time believing that my impression of what’s just for Nancy could be skewed from reality” and took issue with human resources “holding the company line.”

Dolan, nine years later, still holds the same position of senior manager she was offered at the time in lieu of a promotion to director. She’s now part of a group of nine women who are leading a growing class of nearly 9,000 workers suing Disney for discrimination against female workers, who say they’re being paid less than their male counterparts.

The message over Dolan’s compensation and title at the company — part of a collection of nearly 200 court records unsealed Tuesday and reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter — challenge arguments from Disney that it equitably pays women and men. In another email, vp compensation NaShawn Bacon in 2020 acknowledges a “pay equity nightmare.”

Disney in 2019 was hit with a suit accusing it of “rampant pay discrimination.” The case cleared a major hurdle Dec. 8 when a judge certified a diverse class of employees, who work across the company’s movie production arm, record labels, theme parks and home distribution subsidiaries, among various other units including broadcast and research and development. It’s believed to be one of the largest classes ever suing under an equal pay act claim. The group comprises women employed by Disney between April 2015 and three months before trial, which is set to start in October next year, below the level of vice president.

Class certification was challenged by Disney. It argued that the suit shouldn’t proceed as a class action because the company employs too many workers whose jobs aren’t comparable to one another.

“They’re in completely different industries which pay completely differently,” said Felicia Davis, a lawyer representing Disney, according to a transcript of the hearing. “They’re in cruise lines, technology, theme parks, marketing, television, HR, film, hotels, retail stores, finance, restaurants, legal. If you name a job, it is part of this lawsuit.”

Davis underscored, “Certification of this case, your honor, would be unprecedented. No discrimination or pay equity class like this has ever been certified.”

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle was unconvinced. He sided with Lori Andrus, a lawyer representing the class, who argued that there’s “strong evidence of Disney’s centralization and uniformity of its practices.”

“The class and subclass definition are clear and objective,” Berle said. “Moreover, there’s no reasonable dispute that defendants’ records contain all the information necessary to identify the potential class members.”

To proceed as a class action, there must be common issues of law and fact among an ascertainable class who are represented by named plaintiffs typical of that group. Berle concluded that was the case for the class suing under an EPA claim for but not for a class of more than 12,000 women suing under a violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act.

This claim revolved largely around arguments that Disney relied on hiring candidates’ salary at their prior job, which led to lower wages for women since raises are based on percentages of salaries, with the pay gap growing larger every year. The policy was changed in 2017, after California passed a law barring employers from asking about pay history. Unlike with the EPA claim, Berle concluded there’s no “common policy” that binds the class together.

The suit initially pegged damages at $150 million when it was filed, though the figure has changed. After the judge’s order certifying the class, there will be discovery going to the heart of the suit’s discrimination claims. And with no additional mediations scheduled to discuss a settlement, the case is set to go to trial in October.

In a statement, Disney said, “We are disappointed with the court’s ruling as to the Equal Pay Act claims and are considering our options.”