Court approves $43M settlement in Disney gender pay discrimination case
Summary
A Los Angeles state judge has given final approval to a $43.25 million class-action settlement against The Walt Disney Co., resolving claims that the company underpaid women, passed them over for promotions and assigned unpaid extra work. Disney has maintained its employment policies are lawful. Beyond the cash, the deal requires an outside labour economist to perform a pay-equity analysis of certain roles for three years, and plaintiffs say the non-monetary measures will provide forward-looking relief to current and future employees.
Key Points
- The court granted final approval of a $43.25 million settlement in Rasmussen et al. v. The Walt Disney Co.
- Plaintiffs alleged women earned tens of thousands less than male counterparts, faced promotion skips and uncompensated extra work; Disney contested the claims.
- Non-monetary terms include a three-year pay-equity review by an outside labour economist for specified positions.
- Judge Elihu Berle had preliminarily approved the deal in May and gave final approval during a California Superior Court hearing.
- Plaintiffs’ lawyers say the settlement will address job classification and benchmarking issues and promote future pay equity at Disney.
- The ruling arrives amid growing regulatory and business attention to pay transparency and equity — many employers say they are not yet ready for mandated transparency.
Context and relevance
The suit was filed nearly six years ago under the California Equal Pay Act and ends with both monetary and structural remedies aimed at long-term change. For HR leaders, compensation specialists and compliance teams, the case is a reminder that high-profile employers face sustained scrutiny — and that settlements increasingly include forward-looking audits and process changes, not just payouts. The decision also sits against broader industry data showing many organisations are still preparing for pay-transparency laws and audits.
Author style
Punchy: This isn’t just another settlement number — it’s a sizeable pay-equity result against an iconic employer, and the required external review signals the kind of ongoing oversight regulators and plaintiffs’ lawyers are pursuing. If you manage pay, promotions or compliance, it’s worth reading the detail.
Why should I read this?
Because it’s a big deal — $43.25M and a mandatory three-year pay review at Disney. If you work in HR, compensation or legal, this flags the type of remedies courts now approve: cash plus concrete changes. In short, it’s the sort of case that can change how companies classify jobs, benchmark pay and defend their practices — so it’s worth a quick skim (or a deep dive if you’re responsible for pay processes).