A federal judge last week rescheduled the trial in a long-running sex discrimination lawsuit against Nike.
Last month, U.S. District Judge Amy Baggio rejected a last-minute attempt to convert the lawsuit into a class action. She then scheduled a March 2 trial.
After attorneys for both sides said they had schedule conflicts, Baggio moved the trial’s start date to July 13.
The lawsuit, filed in August 2018, described Nike as a place where “women are devalued and demeaned” and systematically underpaid or passed over for promotions, allegations the company has consistently disputed.
The two sides reached a tentative settlement nearly a year ago, less than a month before a previously scheduled trial. Since then, they’ve resolved the claims of all named plaintiffs, except for one.
But separately, they’ve been unable to finalize the terms of a tentative settlement with a broader class of employees, which would have included additional women who worked at Nike.
Since she became the case’s presiding judge in August 2024, Baggio has expressed impatience with how long it’s taken to resolve the lawsuit. She did so again in her order changing the trial date, noting she “will not reschedule the trial date in this case again absent extraordinary circumstances.”
But the upcoming trial might not end the matter.
In an email, a lawyer for plaintiffs said they plan to continue the fight to recognize a class of plaintiffs.
“For seven and a half years, our client has fought for the women in the proposed class, for accountability, and for change,” said Byron Goldstein, of the law firm Goldstein Browne, in an email. “After her individual claims are tried, we will continue the fight for these women in the appellate court.”
Goldstein said the two sides “engaged in more than nine months of negotiations on a potential class settlement but could not reach agreement on all material terms.”
In a statement, Nike said it “believes the court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion to reopen class certification.”
“That decision is consistent with the ruling of the Magistrate Judge (who presided over this case for nearly five years), the prior District Judge assigned to the case, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit conducting a preliminary review of the legal issues,” the company said.
©2026 Advance Local Media LLC. Visit oregonlive.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
