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
Andrea Mazingo, left, and Nilab Rahyar Tolton, the original named plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of women suing Jones Day for "systematic discrimination." (Courtesy photo)
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
Jones Day Parental Leave Bias Suit Likely to Reverberate
Prior Salary Can Justify Gender Pay Differences, US Supreme Court Is Told
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
© 2025 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 All
Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules
4 minute read
State Appellate Court Settles Fee Battle Between Former Co-Counsel in Patent Litigation
5 minute read
Return to Work Mandates Among Current Mental Health Stressors for Legal Professionals
1 minute read
Internal GC Hires Rebounded in '24, but Companies Still Drawn to Outside Candidates
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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