Should Law Firms Fear Latest Ruling in Jones Day Gender Bias Case?
Now that a high-profile gender bias suit against the firm is partly advancing, the spotlight will turn to how the firm makes decisions about compensating and promoting junior attorneys.
May 20, 2020 at 07:33 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Over a year ago, two California attorneys launched a proposed gender-bias class action filled with sordid details about how Jones Day allegedly treats its female associates. The list of women attaching their names to the suit rose to six, while the swelling docket also grew to include a sanctions motion against the attorneys who brought the case.
On Tuesday, a federal judge weighed in on the substance of their allegations for the first time.
While U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia dismissed some claims alleging a hostile work environment at Jones Day and others relying on the Equal Pay Act, he advanced claims focusing on the firm's system of evaluating associates, which hit directly at the firm's "black box" compensation model.
"Plaintiffs have challenged four policies—the 'No Whining' policy, the pay secrecy policy, the subjective evaluation system, and the hyper-centralization of pay and promotion decisions at the hands of managing partner Steve Brogan," Sanford Heisler Sharp partner Kate Mueting, who represents the plaintiffs, said in an email. "The court allowed all of these challenges to proceed, and plaintiffs will proceed to discovery on all of them, including the evaluation policy."
That could sound a warning for other firms that rely on subjective measures for assessing the performance of their junior attorneys.
A swath of Moss' 88-page opinion turned upon allegations that Jones Day relies on "consensus statements" that are prepared by selecting feedback from some, but not all, individual evaluations and are then read to associates under review. These associates aren't given copies of the statements or access to individual evaluations, nor are they permitted to challenge these statements, the plaintiffs say.
"It is plausible, for example, that the 'consensus statements,' which plaintiffs allege are 'easily manipula[ted]' and allow for 'cherry pick[ing]' of content from the various underlying reviews, shape an overall picture of an associate that is both inaccurate and disadvantageous to women associates," Moss said. "It is also plausible that the 'No Whining' or the 'Pay Secrecy' policy caused continued disparities by closing natural feedback channels."
That suggests that the case, as it advances, will turn in large part on the propriety of the firm's mode of evaluating associates.
The catch, for the plaintiffs, is that trying to prove a subjective practice is discriminatory is much more difficult than demonstrating the same proof for an objective practice, said Vanderbilt University Law School professor Jennifer Shinall.
"Take an interview, the paradigm of a subjective hiring practice. It's always going to be very easy for an employer to say, 'The person I ultimately hired just interviewed better,'" she said. "It's very hard to prove discrimination on subjective hiring practices just because they're open to interpretation."
Nonetheless, the court's decision should give some pause to other firms that rely on similarly opaque processes to make decisions about promotion and compensation for associates, said University of Virginia School of Law professor J.H. "Rip" Verkerke—even if a full reckoning will have to wait.
"It's important to remember, however, that this ruling simply denies a motion to dismiss," he said in an email. "I'd expect this litigation to continue for another year or two before it's close to being resolved."
Another factor that might stand in the way of self-reflection elsewhere in the industry are the allegations in the lawsuit that go beyond the evaluation process. The original complaint, for example, depicts multiple instances of what plaintiffs claim was a "frat house" culture at the firm.
"One other thing that certainly harms Jones Day and will give other law firms a way of dismissing Jones Day as different is the fact that there all of these documented anecdotes regarding treatment of women at Jones Day across offices," Shinall said.
Also unusual: the outsized role that longtime managing partner Brogan allegedly plays in all compensation decisions.
"It's striking that the managing partner wielded such unbelievable power," Shinall added.
A spokesman for the firm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|Read More
'Someone Has to Speak Up': Lawyers Suing Jones Day Say Career Risk Is Worth It
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs Tech-Focused Roles in C-Suite Expand, Newcomers Embrace Big Law Opportunities
What About the Old Partners Who Have No Interest in AI?
Avantia CEO Discuss Blurring Lines Between Law Firm, Software Provider and ALSP
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250