Apple must face sex bias lawsuit from janitorial service, California judge rules
Apple must contend with a lawsuit that accuses it of canceling a janitorial services contract because the owner is a woman, a judge ruled Wednesday.
Credit: Apple
The original complaint, Industrial Janitorial Service v. Apple Inc, was lodged in a California state court in 2019 and accused the Cupertino-based company of sex bias in its decision to terminate its contract with the plaintiff.
In a tentative ruling Wednesday, California state court Judge Cynthia Lie ruled that the conduct alleged in the complaint was sufficient enough to allow the case to go to trial, Bloomberg reported.
According to the lawsuit, Apple paid $215,000 a month to have Industrial Janitorial Service clean about 40 Apple Store locations. In 2017, it cut that number to five stores and terminated its contract with the janitorial service.
The dispute began in mid-213, when Apple managers discovered the service was selling its unpaid invoices to a third-party broker. The lawsuit says that Apple was typically three to four months late in paying invoices.
When Apple staffers asked the owner of the service company, Darla Drendel, to come to Cupertino, she described their conduct as "rude and dismissive."
In later communications between Apple and Drendel's husband, an Apple manager allegedly referred to Drendel as "a typical woman in business" who "thinks she is assertive, but she's just pushy."
In 2017, Drendel notified Apple that it paid $1.5 million in unpaid invoices. Apple then terminated the contract, the complaint said.
Although Judge Lie ruled that the janitorial service has sufficient facts to support claims of discriminatory business practices, she rejected other claims alleged in the complaint -- such as one that accused Apple of unlawfully breaching its contract.
Credit: Apple
The original complaint, Industrial Janitorial Service v. Apple Inc, was lodged in a California state court in 2019 and accused the Cupertino-based company of sex bias in its decision to terminate its contract with the plaintiff.
In a tentative ruling Wednesday, California state court Judge Cynthia Lie ruled that the conduct alleged in the complaint was sufficient enough to allow the case to go to trial, Bloomberg reported.
According to the lawsuit, Apple paid $215,000 a month to have Industrial Janitorial Service clean about 40 Apple Store locations. In 2017, it cut that number to five stores and terminated its contract with the janitorial service.
The dispute began in mid-213, when Apple managers discovered the service was selling its unpaid invoices to a third-party broker. The lawsuit says that Apple was typically three to four months late in paying invoices.
When Apple staffers asked the owner of the service company, Darla Drendel, to come to Cupertino, she described their conduct as "rude and dismissive."
In later communications between Apple and Drendel's husband, an Apple manager allegedly referred to Drendel as "a typical woman in business" who "thinks she is assertive, but she's just pushy."
In 2017, Drendel notified Apple that it paid $1.5 million in unpaid invoices. Apple then terminated the contract, the complaint said.
Although Judge Lie ruled that the janitorial service has sufficient facts to support claims of discriminatory business practices, she rejected other claims alleged in the complaint -- such as one that accused Apple of unlawfully breaching its contract.
Comments
People who identify other people by gender, color, race, etc. will ALWAYS find SOMETHING wrong with whatever you did. Learn that lesson now.
Yep. That does seem very unlikely.
Had she been a man this would be laughed at. Since it's a female she may win.
I'm almost certain had the plaintiff been a man, no-one would have referred to them as "Typical man in business..." yada yada.
The thing is the statement is definitely misogynistic, and someone managing contracts for Apple should be smart enough not to say that sort of thing out loud, particularly to the husband of the person they're talking about. And that's my issue with the whole thing: why would an executive at Tim Cook's Apple, which is constantly being lambasted by commenters on this very board for "political correctness gone mad" and "prioritising demographics over ability", have actually said that?
I see this playing out one of two ways. If they can produce correspondence with that exact wording in it, they will win. If it wasn't written correspondence, or if the wording is different to what is given above, or there is some kind of context that might shift the meaning (hard to see what it would be, though), there will be a long court case arguing over the actual meaning of what was said.
As for the executive, I don't know if he has much of a future with Apple. Unless, as stated above, it can be proved that he didn't actually say what is alleged, he might be OK. But if he actually said that, I don't see him being employed by Apple for much longer. Or at the very least, he will spend a lot of time in HR training courses.