Alexander Floyd v. Photon Infotech Inc., et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: December 1, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01372
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 ALEXANDER FLOYD, CASE NO. C24-01372-KKE 8

Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION TO REMAND AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 10 PHOTON INFOTECH INC., et al.,

11 Defendant(s).

12 Plaintiff Alexander Floyd filed this putative class action in King County Superior Court 13 alleging that Defendant Photon Infotech Inc. (“Photon”) violated Washington’s Equal Pay and 14 Opportunity Act (“EPOA”) by failing to disclose certain pay information in a job posting. See 15 Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110; Dkt. No. 1-1. Photon removed the case to this Court (Dkt. No. 1) 16 and now moves to dismiss the complaint (Dkt. No. 12). Meanwhile, Floyd moves to remand the 17 case back to state court. Dkt. No. 14. 18 This Court must remand a removed case to state court if the plaintiff lacks standing to bring 19 a federal suit under Article III of the United States Constitution. Article III standing requires, 20 among other things, a concrete injury-in-fact. Although he applied for a position, Floyd never 21 alleges he was genuinely interested in gaining employment with Photon. Accordingly, he fails to 22 plead a cognizable injury resulting from Photon’s alleged violation of the pay disclosure 23 24 1 requirement. The Court will therefore grant Floyd’s motion to remand and deny Photon’s motion 2 to dismiss as moot. 3 I. BACKGROUND

4 Floyd alleges that on September 27, 2023, he applied to Photon for an “AZURE Devops 5 Engineer” position that he found through a job posting on LinkedIn. Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶¶ 25, 30; id. at 6 15. According to his complaint, the job posting “did not disclose the wage scale or salary range 7 being offered[,]” causing him “to complete the entire application without learning the rate of pay.” 8 Id. ¶¶ 27, 29. Floyd further alleges that Photon’s failure to post wage or salary information 9 “negatively impacts [his] current and lifetime wages,” adversely affects his “ability to negotiate 10 pay,” and resulted in “lost valuable time[.]” Id. ¶¶ 32–34. 11 Floyd filed this lawsuit in King County Superior Court claiming Photon violated a 12 provision of the EPOA that became effective January 1, 2023, requiring employers to disclose

13 certain pay information in job postings. Dkt. No. 1-2; Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110. In particular, 14 the provision requires employers “with 15 or more employees” to disclose the “wage scale or 15 salary range” and a “general description” of other compensation and benefits in each posting for 16 an available position. Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110(1)(a), (3). The statute provides a private right 17 of action authorizing any “job applicant” or “employee” to sue an employer for violating the pay 18 disclosure requirement. Id. § 49.58.110(5). 19 In this suit, Floyd seeks to represent a class of individuals who responded to job postings 20 lacking the same information for Photon positions in Washington. Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶ 21. Photon 21 removed the case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction and the Class Action Fairness Act. 22 Dkt. No. 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), (d)). Photon then moved to dismiss the complaint under

23 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing Floyd failed to allege facts showing he was a 24 “bona fide” or “good faith” applicant for employment. Dkt. No. 12 at 1–2. Floyd responded (Dkt. 1 No. 15) and moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the Court lacks jurisdiction 2 because, among other reasons, Floyd lacks Article III standing (Dkt. No. 14). 3 On October 11, 2024, amid briefing on these motions, the Washington State Supreme Court

4 accepted review of a certified question concerning the EPOA from Judge John H. Chun of this 5 Court. Branson v. Wash. Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC, 557 P.3d 253 (Wash. 2024). The certified 6 question asked: “What must a Plaintiff prove to be deemed a ‘job applicant’ within the meaning 7 of RCW 49.58.110(4)? For example, must they prove that they are a ‘bona fide’ applicant?” 8 Branson v. Wash. Fine Wines & Spirits, LLC, 2:24-CV-00589-JHC, 2024 WL 4510680, at *1 9 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 20, 2024). Finding the certified question relevant to the pending motions in 10 this case, this Court stayed the case until the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Branson. Dkt. 11 No. 27. 12 On September 4, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court answered the certified question as

13 follows: 14 A job applicant need not prove they are a “bona fide” applicant to be deemed a “job applicant.” Rather, in accordance with the plain language of RCW 49.58.110(4), a 15 person must apply to any solicitation intended to recruit job applicants for a specific available position to be considered a “job applicant,” regardless of the person’s 16 subjective intent in applying for the specific position. Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, 574 P.3d 1031, 1040 (Wash. 2025). As requested by 17 the parties, this Court lifted the stay and reinstated Photon’s motion to dismiss and Floyd’s motion 18 to remand. Dkt. No. 31. Neither party has requested oral argument. And both motions are now 19 ripe for consideration. 20 21 II. ANALYSIS 22 A. Legal Standard for Remand A party may remove a state court action to federal district court only if the action could 23 have originally been filed in federal court. Renteria-Hinojosa v. Sunsweet Growers, Inc., 150 24 1 F.4th 1076, 1091 (9th Cir. 2025); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). If the district court determines, after 2 removal, it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the case back to state court. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1447(c). The Ninth Circuit has a “strong presumption” against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

4 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (quoting Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 5 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir.1990)). Thus, “‘the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 6 removal is proper,’ and ... the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” 7 Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gaus, 980 F.2d at 8 566). If the plaintiff in a removed case lacks Article III standing, the court must remand the action 9 rather than dismiss it. Polo v. Innoventions Int’l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2016). 10 B. Floyd Lacks Article III Standing 11 In something of a role reversal from the typical case, Floyd argues he lacks Article III 12 standing while Photon defends his standing to sue. In “every federal case[,]” standing is a

13 “threshold question” that “determin[es] the power of the court to entertain the suit.” Warth v. 14 Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). In class actions, the standing analysis focuses on the individual 15 class representatives. See O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 (1974) (“[I]f none of the named 16 plaintiffs purporting to represent a class establishes the requisite of a case or controversy with the 17 defendants, none may seek relief on behalf of himself or any other member of the class.”). 18 Standing requirements “can neither be waived by the parties nor ignored by the court[.]” Yakima 19 Valley Mem’l Hosp. v. Wash. State Dep’t of Health, 654 F.3d 919, 932 n.17 (9th Cir. 2011). When 20 standing is in dispute, “[t]he burden of showing that there is standing rests on the shoulders of the 21 party asserting it.” Smelt v. Cnty. of Orange, 447 F.3d 673, 682 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Lujan v. 22 Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)).

23 To establish standing, the plaintiff must have an injury-in-fact that is concrete, 24 particularized, actual or imminent, fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant, and 1 likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. Cal. Sea Urchin Comm’n v. Bean, 883 F.3d 1173, 2 1180 (9th Cir. 2018), as amended (Apr. 18, 2018) (citing Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw 3 Env’t Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180–81 (2000)). Importantly, “Article III standing requires

4 a concrete injury even in the context of a statutory violation.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 5 330, 341 (2016), as revised (May 24, 2016). 6 Here, Floyd’s suit is based on the alleged violation of his rights under the EPOA. When 7 standing is based on statutory rights, “a bare procedural violation, divorced from any concrete 8 harm” does not “satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III.” Id. Statutes may elevate 9 intangible harms to the status of a concrete injury if the statutory violation presents a “risk of real 10 harm” or “has a close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a 11 basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts[.]” Id. at 340–41. Still, a “procedural violation 12 of an informational entitlement” like the EPOA will not “suffice to keep a claim in federal court”

13 unless the plaintiff “allege[s] at least that the information had some relevance to her.” Magadia v. 14 Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 999 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis in original) (quoting 15 Brintley v. Aeroquip Credit Union, 936 F.3d 489, 493 (6th Cir. 2019)). To determine if a statutory 16 violation creates a concrete injury-in-fact, the Ninth Circuit in Magadia instructed courts to 17 consider (1) “whether the statutory provisions at issue were established to protect ... concrete 18 interests (as opposed to purely procedural rights)” and (2) “whether the specific procedural 19 violations alleged in th[e] case actually harm, or present a material risk of harm to, such interests.” 20 Id. As detailed below, the Court concludes that Floyd’s complaint fails this test. 21 Beginning with Magadia’s first step, several courts in this district have held that 22 Washington’s legislature enacted the EPOA’s pay disclosure requirement “to protect concrete,

23 non-procedural rights for job applicants and employees.” Hill v. ACV Auctions Inc. (“Hill I”), No. 24 C25-616 MJP, 2025 WL 1582249, at *3 (W.D. Wash. June 4, 2025); see also Partridge v. 1 Heartland Express Inc. of Iowa, No. 3:24-CV-05486-DGE, 2024 WL 4164245, at *3 (W.D. Wash. 2 Sept. 12, 2024) (“[EPOA] protects job applicants’ concrete interest in receiving ‘sufficient 3 information to ensure fair and equitable pay negotiations.’”) (quoting Spencer v. Vera Whole

4 Health, Inc., No. C24-337 MJP, 2024 WL 3276578, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 2, 2024)). This Court 5 agrees. By arming job applicants with wage and salary information early in the application 6 process, the EPOA’s disclosure requirement protects applicants’ interest in negotiating fair pay 7 and “avoid[ing] wast[ed] time interviewing for positions whose pay would never be adequate.” 8 Hill I, 2025 WL 1582249, at *3. 9 Floyd’s standing, however, falters at Magadia’s second step. While the EPOA generally 10 protects concrete interests of job applicants, Floyd’s complaint fails to allege any basis for 11 concluding that Photon’s nondisclosure caused actual or material risk of harm to him. As 12 numerous courts in this district have held, unless the plaintiff was “a bona fide applicant” for

13 employment, an EPOA violation involving “a job posting with no compensation information 14 included” does not “by itself … manifest concrete injury[.]” Hill v. Les Schwab Tire Ctrs. of Wash. 15 LLC (“Hill II”), No. 24-CV-425-BJR, 2025 WL 3062646, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 31, 2025) (citing 16 cases); see also, e.g., Eggleston v. Bruckner Truck Sales Inc., No. C25-1467JLR, 2025 WL 17 3153503, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 12, 2025) (“Absent a showing of bona fide intent or good faith, 18 Mr. Eggleston cannot show an injury-in-fact.”). This makes sense because failing to disclose pay 19 information cannot impact pay negotiations, time spent interviewing, or compensation for a job 20 the plaintiff never actually intended to pursue. Thus, “a nominal applicant with no interest in the 21 position will neither receive a benefit from early pay disclosure nor be harmed by the lack thereof.” 22 Hill II, 2025 WL 3062646, at *4. And while Branson held that such applicants are “job applicants”

23 under the statute, it did not purport to address whether an EPOA violation harms their concrete 24 interests for Article III standing purposes. 574 P.3d at 1040. 1 As the parties agree, Floyd was not a “bona fide” applicant for employment with Photon. 2 Dkt. No. 12 at 1–2; Dkt. No. 14 at 3. Indeed, in its motion to dismiss, Photon concedes that Floyd 3 “alleges no facts at all indicating what his intent was.” Dkt. No. 12 at 2. Nevertheless, to support

4 jurisdiction, it points to Floyd’s allegations that the nondisclosure of pay information “negatively 5 impact[ed] [his] current and lifetime wages,” adversely affected his “ability to negotiate pay,” and 6 “direct[ly]” resulted in “economic and non-economic harm[.]” Dkt. No. 18 at 2 (quoting Dkt. No. 7 1-2 ¶¶ 32, 33, 35). But absent a genuine interest in the position, such conclusory allegations do 8 not establish that the nondisclosure “placed [Floyd] at a disadvantage relative to other applicants” 9 or “resulted in him having to exit a lengthy interview process after learning the pay was insufficient 10 for his needs.” Partridge, 2024 WL 4164245, at *4; Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 11 888 (1990) (holding that conclusory allegations are insufficient to confer standing). Photon never 12 offered him an interview, much less a job, so Floyd was never in a position to negotiate pay or

13 participate in futile interviews. Courts have found identical allegations in other complaints 14 insufficient to establish standing.1 See Hill I, 2025 WL 1582249, at *3 (holding same allegations 15 “fail[ed] to show any actual harm against which the EPOA intends to protect”); Eggleston, No. 16 C25-1467JLR, 2025 WL 3153503, at *2–3 (rejecting standing based on same allegations in the 17 complaint at Dkt. No. 1-1 ¶¶ 30, 31, 34). 18 Floyd also alleges he “lost valuable time” applying to the position. Dkt. No. 1-2 ¶ 34. But 19 to the extent he was not a bona fide applicant, such harm is self-inflicted and, in any event, “not 20 an injury that the EPOA seeks to prevent or redress.” Hill I, 2025 WL 1582249, at *3; Floyd, 2024 21

22 1 To that end, Floyd has filed other similarly pleaded EPOA cases that were removed from state court and then remanded for lack of Article III standing on the same basis. See Floyd v. Insight Glob. LLC, No. 23-CV-1680-BJR, 23 2024 WL 2133370 (W.D. Wash. May 10, 2024), amended on reconsideration, No. 23-CV-1680-BJR, 2024 WL 3199858 (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2024); Floyd v. DoorDash, Inc., No. 23-CV-1740-BJR, 2024 WL 2325128 (W.D. Wash. May 22, 2024). While Photon cites one of these cases in its opposition brief (Dkt. No. 18 at 2–3), its attempt 24 to distinguish this case based on conclusory allegations of harm in Floyd’s complaint is unpersuasive. 1 WL 2133370, at *7 n.8 (“The Court notes that any time wasted in applying for a job without good 2 faith is actually a self-inflicted harm.”). “A generalized assertion of time lost, therefore, does not 3 support Article III standing.” Partridge, 2024 WL 4164245, at *4. Because Floyd does not allege

4 he was a bona fide applicant for employment with Photon, he lacks Article III standing. 5 Nothing in the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Branson changes this Court’s 6 standing analysis. Branson answered the question of what a plaintiff must prove to show they are 7 a “job applicant,” and thus authorized to sue, under the EPOA. 574 P.3d at 1033–34. Whether 8 Floyd is a “job applicant” or not, his suit cannot proceed in federal court without an Article III 9 injury. See Spokeo, 578 F.3d at 341 (“[A] plaintiff [does not] automatically satisf[y] the injury- 10 in-fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory right and purports to authorize 11 that person to sue to vindicate that right.”). Floyd alleges no such injury. Because his lack of 12 Article III standing eliminates this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction, see Warth, 422 U.S. at 498,

13 the Court must remand this case to King County Superior Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 14 III. CONCLUSION 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Floyd’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. No. 14) and DENIES 16 Photon’s Motion to Dismiss as moot (Dkt. No. 12). This case is remanded to King County Superior 17 Court. 18 Dated this 1st day of December, 2025. 19 A 20 Kymberly K. Evanson 21 United States District Judge

22 23 24