FILE - American and Oregon flags fly above the Nike headquarters near Beaverton, Ore., June 30, 2025.
Morgan Barnaby / OPB
A jury of one woman and seven men heard closing arguments Monday in a federal case alleging unequal pay and promotion opportunities at one of Oregon’s most recognizable companies, Nike.
The jury will start deliberating at 9 a.m. Tuesday and could return a verdict any time.
The lawsuit over Nike’s treatment of women started in 2018 when four employees sued the athletic wear company for sex discrimination. Last year, three of the four women settled.
The six-day trial was solely focused on the unequal pay and promotion claims from one woman, Heather Hender, who worked at the headquarters in Washington County.
During closing arguments, the legal team for Hender argued that evidence showed Nike had a culture of promoting men faster than women while paying them more. When senior managers finally tried to address the culture, lawyers said, they failed to remedy past inequities.
“It’s time that Nike be held accountable for its actions,” one of Hender’s lawyers, Laura Salerno Owens of Portland law firm Markowitz Herbold PC, told the jury. “And its inactions.”
In contrast, lawyers for Nike sought to convince the jury Hender’s skills and qualifications led to her pay and promotion history with the company, not her gender.
Nike’s overall environment and culture is not on trial, Daniel Prince of Los Angeles-based law firm Paul Hastings told the jury.
“This is about a specific person,” Prince said.
The jury will decide separately on federal and state pay and promotion discrimination claims. If the jury rules in Hender’s favor, it will also decide on punitive damages for Nike.
Nike is Oregon’s most globally recognized company with roots stretching back to Eugene track meets in the 1960s. The athletic wear giant currently employs more than 10,000 workers at its headquarters near Beaverton.
Related: Nike gender discrimination trial gets underway after 8 years of litigation
Hender, a former process engineer, claims she was paid less than male colleagues that did similar work and that she was passed over for promotions because she’s a woman.
Nike has continually denied the claims.
The judge had hoped to keep the trial to one week. However, lengthy witness cross-examinations, plus multiple discussions between the judge and attorneys about what evidence could be discussed at trial, ate into planned trial time.
On Friday, at the request of Hender’s attorneys, Judge Baggio granted each side an extra hour of trial time to compensate.
Hender testified for around four hours last week. She described the culture at Nike as hostile towards women during the time she worked at the company, from 2015 through 2020.
As a process engineer, Hender helped oversee the equipment that helped create Nike’s specialized soles filled with pockets of pressurized air.
Nike attorneys called witnesses that had managed Hender or worked with her, asking all of them if they had reason to believe Hender was treated differently based on her gender. They said no.
Attorneys for the company also called witnesses that Hender had pointed to as examples of male colleagues with similar work that got paid more. Lawyers for Nike worked to convince the jury the workers held different roles than Hender or had different qualifications that led to their pay.
All the witnesses expressed fond memories of working with Hender, often smiling at her from the witness box.
Throughout the trial, lawyers for Hender have worked to characterize Nike headquarters as a workplace that passes over women for promotions and belittles their contributions.
Nike’s attorneys have, in contrast, worked to show the jury that Nike offers equal opportunity to women and men for advancement. The company’s lawyers called witnesses who testified Hender’s pay was based on her experience and skills, not her gender.
This trial is solely focused on Hender’s pay and promotion discrimination claim. However, the original lawsuit included numerous claims of gender discrimination at Nike World Headquarters. Four women sued the company in 2018, claiming the campus was a hostile workplace with limited opportunities for upward mobility for women.
Attorneys for the women previously sought to broaden the case to a class action lawsuit representing hundreds of women who worked or had been employed at Nike headquarters. A judge denied that effort.
Once this trial concludes, all decisions — including the denied effort to make it a class action suit — can be challenged in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The jury has options. They could rule in favor of Nike in totality, or for Hender. The jury could also choose to rule in favor of Hender for one of her claims, but not the other.
