Jones Day Loses Bid to Sanction Associates in Gender Bias Case
The ruling comes three weeks after the same federal judge refused to dismiss disparate-impact claims related to Jones Day's "black box" compensation model but trimmed other discrimination claims.
June 09, 2020 at 02:55 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A federal judge on Tuesday denied Jones Day's request for sanctions against a group of ex-associates who are waging a $200 million proposed gender discrimination class action against the Am Law 50 law firm.
In a minute order, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C., said he wasn't persuaded by Jones Day's assertion that the evidence revealed so far undermined and contradicted the plaintiffs' claims that Jones Day paid men more than women.
"To the extent that Jones Day argues that plaintiffs failed adequately to investigate their claims before initiating this lawsuit, the court is unconvinced," Moss wrote. He noted that the named plaintiffs—six female former associates—faced "two considerable challenges": the firm maintains a secretive "black box" compensation structure, and they lack access to the firm's organizational pay data.
Moss' ruling comes three weeks after he refused to dismiss disparate-impact claims related to Jones Day's compensation model but trimmed others, including claims that the firm maintained a hostile work environment, violated the Equal Pay Act, and discriminated against pregnant women or mothers.
Discovery hasn't commenced yet, Moss wrote, and Jones Day is relying only on the evidence it has cited in its motions. Sanctioning the plaintiffs at this point before discovery can be conducted would be premature, Moss continued.
"Here, the court does not yet know enough about the relevant facts to determine whether plaintiffs' allegations are so baseless that sanctions are warranted," Moss wrote. "Rule 11 is intended to deter and to punish litigation abuses. It is not a means of obtaining an early resolution of the merits of a dispute."
The plaintiffs are being represented by attorneys from Sanford Heisler Sharp, while Jones Day is being represented by its own attorneys. Neither side immediately responded to requests for comment.
|Read More
Should Law Firms Fear Latest Ruling in Jones Day Gender Bias Case?
This content has been archived.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 All'Sharp and Profound' Policy Shifts Prompt DC Law Firms to Evaluate Opportunities, Challenges
5 minute readAs Tech-Focused Roles in C-Suite Expand, Newcomers Embrace Big Law Opportunities
What About the Old Partners Who Have No Interest in AI?
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 3Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
- 5Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
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