SEATTLE (LN) — U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones on Thursday granted plaintiff Billy Abrego Olea’s motion to remand the case to state court, ruling that Olea lacked Article III standing because he was not a "bona fide applicant" for the position he applied for.
The case centers on an amendment to the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA) that requires employers with 15 or more employees to disclose salary ranges in job postings. Olea alleged that a Chipotle job posting in King County, Washington, failed to include this information, violating the statute.
Olea filed the lawsuit in state court before Chipotle removed it to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. Olea then moved to remand, arguing the federal court lacked jurisdiction because he suffered no concrete harm.
Jones agreed, applying a two-part inquiry from the Ninth Circuit to determine if the statutory violation constituted a concrete harm. While the court found the EPOA was enacted to protect concrete interests, it ruled that Olea’s specific allegations did not actually harm those interests because he was not a genuine applicant.
The judge noted that courts in the district have held that an EPOA violation does not manifest concrete injury unless the plaintiff was a "bona fide applicant."
"This makes sense because failing to disclose pay information cannot impact pay negotiations, time spent interviewing, or compensation for a job the plaintiff never actually intended to pursue," Jones wrote, citing prior district court decisions.
Jones characterized Olea’s allegations regarding the impact on his ability to negotiate pay and lifetime wages as "conclusory and speculative." The record contained no indication that Olea would have been selected for an interview or engaged in pay negotiations beyond a general assertion that he was qualified for the position.
"Without these facts, the Court cannot conclude Mr. Olea suffered, or had a material risk of suffering, the type of harm contemplated," the order stated.
Chipotle argued that lost time and informational harm should support standing, and that Olea qualified as a "tester" plaintiff similar to those recognized in fair housing cases. The judge dismissed these arguments, noting that the Supreme Court’s tester precedent depends on congressional intent and that the EPOA does not contemplate the type of harm Olea alleged.
The court also rejected Chipotle’s argument that a recent Washington Supreme Court decision redefining "job applicant" changed the federal standing analysis. The state court in that case expressly declined to address standing, leaving the federal Article III requirement intact.
Jones declined to apply the "futility exception" to dismiss the case outright, noting that state courts are not bound by Article III constraints and might allow the case to proceed.
The order aligns with a series of similar rulings in the Western District of Washington that have remanded EPOA cases where plaintiffs lacked a genuine interest in the positions they applied for.
Jones is a George W. Bush appointee.