New class action accuses Adobe of paying women less, then retaliating

According to the filing, it started with pay. Buntjer alleges that her own supervisor, Maurice D., told her directly that she was earning less than a male counterpart doing substantially the same job. The suit claims the gap was not an isolated case — that the companies set starting pay lower for women and that percentage-based raises widened the disparity over time.

Then, the filing alleges, things got worse. The same supervisor allegedly made repeated comments about Buntjer’s appearance, told her how to wear her hair and eyelashes, and physically hugged, groped, and kissed her without consent. He also allegedly pressured her with references to his LDS faith, telling her he would pray for her and urging her to come to him for religious guidance — conduct she did not welcome.

Buntjer says she reported everything, both orally and in writing. The companies, according to the filing, substantiated the findings. But rather than resolution, she alleges what came next was retaliation: delayed pay, a hostile work environment, and ultimately termination — despite what the suit describes as stellar work performance.

For HR professionals, the staffing arrangement adds a wrinkle worth watching. Both Adobe and Talentburst are named as joint employers, raising a practical question many organizations now face: when a company and its staffing partner share an employee, who owns the obligation to ensure equal pay and a safe workplace?

The suit also takes aim at the evaluation systems themselves, alleging that the companies relied on unvalidated and unreliable procedures for assessing performance — processes that, the filing claims, systematically undervalued female employees relative to their similarly situated male peers.