Case Background
Heather Hender, a former Nike process engineer, took her sex discrimination claims against Nike, Inc. to a federal jury in Portland. The case began on August 9, 2018, when Kelly Cahill and Sara Johnston filed a proposed class and collective action. Hender joined as a named Plaintiff on November 19, 2018. The Second Amended Complaint, filed on October 26, 2023, named Cahill, Johnston, Lindsay Elizabeth, and Hender.
The Court denied class certification on March 21, 2023. On January 15, 2026, it refused to let the Plaintiffs renew that request. By then, Cahill, Johnston, and Elizabeth had dismissed their claims with prejudice. As a result, only Hender's individual sex discrimination claims remained for trial.
By trial, the case proceeded under the caption Heather Hender v. Nike, Inc. Judge Amy Baggio presided over the trial, which ran from July 13 through July 22, 2026.
Hender worked for Nike from April 6, 2015, through October 12, 2020. She started as a Manufacturing Engineer II, a title Nike changed to Process Engineer in 2016. In September 2018, Nike promoted her to Senior Process Engineer I. Nike admitted these employment details in its answer.
According to the complaint, Hender had nearly 20 years of engineering and technical experience when Nike hired her.
Cause
The complaint alleged that Nike paid and promoted Hender less than her male peers. Nike hired her into an L-Band position, a fact Nike admitted. However, Hender alleged that Nike set her salary at the lower end of that band's range.
Hender also alleged that her duties matched those of a male Senior Process Engineer I on her team. According to the complaint, that engineer held a higher U-Band level. As a result, he allegedly earned a higher salary and larger bonuses.
In addition, the complaint alleged that Nike asked for Hender's prior salary when it hired her. Nike then allegedly set her starting pay within $2,000 of her previous annual earnings. Nike denied the pay comparison and prior salary allegations.
The complaint also challenged Nike's use of prior pay, forced performance rankings, salary budgeting, talent planning, and job assignments.
Separately, Hender alleged that Nike retaliated against her. She filed a sex discrimination charge with the EEOC on November 9, 2018. Afterward, she alleged, Nike withheld work assignments and critical safety training. She also claimed that Nike ignored her communications about a patent application. Nike denied these allegations.
Injury
The case involved financial and professional harm rather than physical injury. Hender alleged that Nike's pay decisions reduced her salary, bonuses, and equity. She also alleged that Nike promoted her more slowly than her male peers.
The complaint also pointed to Hender's performance record. Nike admitted that she received Successful ratings in 2016 and 2017 and a Highly Successful rating in 2018. Hender further alleged that her supervisor said she was already doing senior-level work before her promotion.
On the retaliation claims, Hender alleged that Nike isolated her and that her performance evaluations suffered.
Damages
Hender sought back pay for lost compensation and equity, along with reinstatement or front pay. The Second Amended Complaint also requested liquidated damages and punitive damages. It further sought declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, and interest. For her retaliation claims, Hender sought back pay, front pay, and garden-variety emotional distress damages.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Heather Hender
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Barry Goldstein | Laura Salerno Owens | David B. Markowitz | Harry B. Wilson | Anna M. Joyce [Terminated: 01/25/2022] | Laura L. Ho | Byron Goldstein | Brian Walter Denlinger | Kathryn P. Roberts [Terminated: 06/24/2026] | Anthony T. Blake , Jr [Terminated: 04/16/2021] | Brittany M. Simpson [Terminated: 05/10/2019] | Chad A. Naso | Craig J. Ackermann | Erika Smolyar | India Lin Bodien [Terminated: 12/30/2025] | James P. Kan | Katharine Fisher Trabucco | Mengfei Sun [Terminated: 04/11/2024] | Kelsie Gene Crippen
Defendant(s): Nike, Inc.
Counsel for Defendant(s): Daniel Prince | Felicia A. Davis | Laura E. Rosenbaum | Amy Joseph Pedersen [Terminated: 06/30/2022] | Nicole Lueddeke | Alyssa Katherine Tapper [Terminated: 06/09/2026] | Erica Kelley | Jennica K. Wragg | Kennon H. Scott [Terminated: 10/15/2021] | Laura E. Zabele [Terminated: 02/14/2023] | Lindsey Cecellia Jackson | Zachary P. Hutton | John A. Berg | Paul E. Cirner
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Second Amended Complaint pleaded eight claims. These included the Federal Equal Pay Act and the Oregon Equal Pay Act. The complaint also asserted disparate impact and disparate treatment claims under Title VII and ORS 659A.030. In addition, Hender alleged retaliation under Title VII and Oregon law.
The verdict form submitted Hender's individual pay and promotion claims to the jury. Under both equal pay laws, jurors decided whether Nike paid her less than men for equal or comparable work. They also decided whether Nike proved that factors other than sex explained any pay gap.
Under Title VII and ORS 659A.030, the jury considered whether Nike paid Hender less because of her sex. It also considered whether Nike promoted her more slowly for the same reason. On December 30, 2025, the Court dismissed Hender's retaliation claims with prejudice under the parties' stipulation. The verdict form also did not include the disparate impact claims.
Defense
Nike denied the discrimination allegations in its answer. It asserted that any pay differences rested on factors other than sex. These included merit, education, training, experience, and bona fide job-related factors. Nike also argued that it acted for legitimate business reasons and would have made the same decisions regardless of sex.
In addition, Nike argued that statutes of limitations barred claims tied to decisions made when employees were hired. On punitive damages, Nike asserted that it made good faith efforts to prevent discrimination. It also argued that statutory damages caps under federal and Oregon law should limit any recovery.
On the retaliation claims, Nike cited its adequate policies, reasonable care, and legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a unanimous verdict, which was read at 11:34 a.m. on July 22, 2026. It found that Nike paid Hender less than male employees in jobs requiring substantially equal work. The jury also found that Nike failed to prove the gap rested entirely on job-related factors.
Next, the jury found that Nike willfully violated the Federal Equal Pay Act. It awarded Hender $19,739.52 in damages under that law.
The jury also ruled for Hender under the Oregon Equal Pay Act. It found that Nike paid her less than male employees for work of comparable character. Nike, the jury found, failed to prove the disparity rested entirely on bona fide factors related to the position. The jury further found, by clear and convincing evidence, that Hender was entitled to punitive damages under that law.
On the disparate treatment claims, the jury found that Nike paid Hender less because of her sex. It also found that Nike promoted her more slowly because of her sex. For both findings, the jury ruled that Hender was entitled to punitive damages under Title VII and ORS 659A.030.
The jury awarded $7.5 million in punitive damages under Title VII. It awarded another $7.5 million in punitive damages under the Oregon Equal Pay Act and/or ORS 659A.030. The verdict form stated that the Court would determine non-punitive damages on the Oregon claims.
Post-Trial Motions
After the verdict, the parties briefed the damages that the Court must decide. Hender filed her opening brief on August 3, 2026, and Nike opposed it on August 13. Both sides then filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on September 8. The Court set October 6, 2026, as the deadline for responses. As of late September 2026, the Court had not entered judgment.
Court Documents
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
