Nike sure knows how to talk, but they continue not to walk. Share holders also seem to be ok with not increasing the transparency. Not cool :(
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/esg/nike-investors-vote-against-pay-equity-shareholder-proposal
5 replies (most recent on top)
@ 6hrp+1oXCyrWy: TLDR!
@everyone else, here’s the nutgraph:
Apparently the ex HRBP testified that there was a pre-2017 policy of finding out how much a candidate was earning and factoring that amount into the Nike offer. It wasn't illegal before 2017, so no big deal, right? Wrong. Nike had already insisted there was no policy, HR employees had testified there were no documents about it because it wasn't a policy, and the judge had denied plaintiffs class action status partially based on there not being a pre-2017 policy. To find out that was false was kind of a big deal.
Yes indeed and the point is that Nike has screwed women for decades and further, @3jhc+1oXCyrWy: stop watching law and order and get back to work. I am still a shareholder. You know not what you speak of.
OP compares apples and oranges without context.
Let's start with the "improper deposition." Here's what happened:
Throughout the case, plaintiffs asked, did Nike have a policy that HR should base pay on how much a candidate was paid in a prior position? Men are paid more than women, so basing a new hire's salary on how much they made at their prior job reinforces the pay gap between the s-xes.
Asking new hires about prior pay has been illegal in Oregon since 2017. Nike changed its policy in 2017 to comply with state law and told plaintiffs there was no information pre-2017 about basing a new hire's salary on their prior pay. HR employees testified there was no policy.
Against that background, plaintiffs recently found a Nike HRBP that had left the company. They sent a deposition subpoena to the ex HRBP and notified Nike they were going to depose the ex HRBP. Nike lawyers asked, what are you going to ask the ex HRBP. Plaintiffs said Come to the deposition and you'll find out. Nike lawyers wanted to delay the deposition. Plaintiffs said OK and rescheduled it for the delayed date Nike wanted. Nike filed a motion to cancel the deposition. Plaintiffs replied to the motion but took the deposition anyway. No one from Nike attended.
Apparently the ex HRBP testified that there was a pre-2017 policy of finding out how much a candidate was earning and factoring that amount into the Nike offer. It wasn't illegal before 2017, so no big deal, right? Wrong. Nike had already insisted there was no policy, HR employees had testified there were no documents about it because it wasn't a policy, and the judge had denied plaintiffs class action status partially based on there not being a pre-2017 policy. To find out that was false was kind of a big deal.
Plaintiffs didn't have to cancel the deposition because Nike filed a motion. It seems plaintiffs checked to see if something like this had ever happened before. It had. Judges in those cases said it was the no-show's fault for not showing up.
If the apples are the "improper" deposition, the oranges are the shareholders.
The shareholders voted not to be informed about a couple human rights issues, including risks related to race- and gender-based pay gaps and allegations of forced labor throughout the supply chain, including Uygur workers in China being forced to make Nike products.
This is not surprising, as dividends and stock price are what the shareholders care about.
From what I understand about the law the plaintiffs did mess up here. A deposition is supposed to be sort of like a mini trial. The plaintiff gets to tell his or her side of the story then the other side gets to question the plaintiff. But if the other side isn’t even there I’m not sure if what happened can be called a proper “deposition”. That’s like saying you went to a baseball game when only one team was there.
The law professor quoted in the article agreed. “Many judges would not be happy that a deposition was taken at which both sides were not present.”
I’m not a legal person. Just someone who has watched too much Law and Order. It seems like the plaintiff was being overly aggressive with the deposition and may as Nike alleges have acted in bad faith. Looks kind of like the plaintiff is acting desperate if I’m being honest.
Even if shareholders want it, and vote for it. Nike wouldn’t have to do anything.
$ speaks