Class-action suit vs. Bloomberg LP nixed

A federal judge ruled against a class-action discrimination suit filed by pregnant women against the news and media-services company founded by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, court officials said Wednesday.

The privately held company, Bloomberg LP, was sued in federal court in Manhattan in 2007 by the federal Equal Opportunity Commission on behalf of pregnant employees who accused the company of engaging in a pattern of discrimination against them in pay and responsibilities.

U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska, in throwing out the suit, ruled "the evidence presented in this case is insufficient to demonstrate that discrimination was Bloomberg's standard operating procedure, even if there were several isolated instances of individual discrimination."

Preska's ruling was issued Tuesday and made publicly available Wednesday.

"We regret today's decision, and look forward to proceeding with the individual claims and will assess our options," an EEOC spokeswoman said.

Bloomberg LP praised the decision, with spokesman Ty Trippet saying it "confirms what we have known all along, that the evidence is squarely on our side and that this case is without merit."

Having lost the consolidated claim as a result of Tuesday's opinion, the EEOC can now proceed with similar allegations on behalf of each of the 65 women who were part of the class action. Of those 65, six are pursuing separate actions against the company.

The widely publicized filing two years into Bloomberg's second term portrayed a hard-charging work environment at Bloomberg LP, where demanding managers rewarded big workloads, and dedication to the company was rewarded with higher pay and incentives.

The EEOC filed the suit on behalf of hundreds of possible claimants who were pregnant or took maternity leave at Bloomberg from 2002 to 2009.

The group alleged that "Bloomberg reduced pregnant women's or mothers' pay, demoted them in title or in number of directly reporting employees . . . reduced their responsibilities, excluded them from management meetings, and subjected them to stereotypes about female caregivers."Ultimately, the judge ruled, "the anecdotal evidence offered is not the kind of high-quality and pervasive anecdotal evidence of a pattern or practice of discrimination other courts have relied on when faced with a complete lack of statistical evidence of discrimination."