After nearly eight years of legal skirmishes, a federal jury in Portland is finally hearing a high-profile case accusing Nike of gender-based pay and promotion discrimination. Four former employees first sued the company in 2018, and while only one of the named plaintiffs is expected to testify in the early days of trial, the proceedings are putting years of allegations about life inside Nike’s Beaverton-area headquarters squarely in front of a local jury.
Trial Opens in Portland Federal Court
According to Oregon Public Broadcasting, the trial began on July 10, 2026, capping off a long run of filings and heated discovery disputes. While four women brought the original lawsuit, OPB notes that only one is slated to appear on the stand at the outset, tightening the early focus even as broader claims remain in the record. The case is drawing significant attention from Portland’s business and legal communities, which have watched it inch toward trial for years.
Who Sued Nike and What They Claimed
Federal court filings identify the case as Cahill et al. v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:18‑cv‑01477. Plaintiffs Kelly Cahill, Sara Johnston, Lindsay Elizabeth and Heather Hender filed suit in August 2018, alleging systemic disparities in pay and promotion for women at Nike’s headquarters. The records describe an internal survey known as “Project Starfish” that plaintiffs say captured hundreds of complaints from women and later became a flashpoint in discovery battles. Motions over what had to be turned over, and what could stay under seal, dominated much of the pretrial phase. GovInfo hosts the complaint and details of the procedural history.
On the Federal Court Calendar
The Portland calendar for the U.S. District Court lists Cahill et al. v. Nike for pretrial conferences and a multi-day jury trial this month, with U.S. District Judge Amy M. Baggio presiding. Docket entries reflect years of motion practice, scheduling disputes and arguments over sealed material, all leading to this public phase of testimony and cross-examination. The listing on the calendar marks the shift from written arguments to live witnesses in open court. The schedule appears on the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon website.
Unsealed Filings Turn Up the Heat
In 2025, newly unsealed records raised the stakes by naming several senior Nike employees and putting previously confidential complaints into the public eye. As the Portland Business Journal reported, those disclosures expanded local interest in the case by tying specific executives to the allegations. The unsealing also fueled further fights over discovery and confidentiality that helped shape what jurors will ultimately see.
What Is Legally on the Line
Court records show the plaintiffs previously sought to certify a wider class, but judges flagged obstacles to that approach. As a result, this trial phase centers mainly on the named plaintiffs and their individual claims rather than an automatic companywide remedy. Judges have also weighed the public’s right of access against confidentiality arguments, issuing a series of rulings that define which documents and testimony will be fully visible to jurors and to the public. Depending on the outcome, a verdict for the plaintiffs could bring monetary damages and potential corporate changes, while a defense win would limit the case’s legal reach, although other administrative or regulatory actions could still emerge. The contested motions on class certification and disclosure are detailed in filings available via GovInfo.
As jury selection and early testimony unfold, one central question will be whether statistical evidence and internal tools such as Project Starfish convince jurors that Nike’s policies produced systemic disadvantages for women. For Portland and the surrounding region, the trial is a rare employment case that drags one of Oregon’s most powerful employers into a very public local courtroom test, with every motion and witness now part of the story.
