Regular Pando readers will know we’ve been following the ongoing class action lawsuit against Gawker by a group of former unpaid interns.
Last week, I posted a series of deposition extracts submitted to a New York court by lawyers acting for Gawker, which purport to show that the experiences of the various plaintiffs were too different to be considered a comprising the same “class”. As I joked at the time, Gawker’s argument seemed to be that the interns couldn’t be part of the same class as they had differing opinions on the uselessness of their internships.
Yesterday attorneys for the interns hit back, submitting much longer transcripts from the same depositions, arguing that…
Relying on excerpts from the depositions of Aulistar Mark and Andrew Hudson, Defendants Gawker Media LLC and Nick Denton (collectively referred to as “Gawker) argue that this case is unsuitable for class or collective treatment if Plaintiffs do not have idential subjective feelings about their Gawker internships, and if they do not have personal knowledge about potential plaintiffs. The law does not support Gawker’s argued standard. Plaintiffs have already carried their burden and demonstrated that they, and the former interns they see to represent, were subjected to Gawker’s common policy of replacing employees with interns to whom Gawker did not pay at least the minimum wage.
The documents, including the deposition transcripts, are embedded below. They make (somewhat) fascinating reading, at least for anyone curious about how much Gawker expected its unpaid laborors to do to earn their… nothing.
And do bear in mind as you read these that Gawker once criticized Google for overpaying its own interns.