Jones Day Bungled Bid to Quash Anonymity, Gender Bias, Plaintiffs Allege
The "billion-dollar global litigation behemoth" failed to take the basic step of conferring with plaintiffs' counsel before asking a judge to unmask their identities, the plaintiffs say.
May 24, 2019 at 11:35 AM
3 minute read
Lawyers for four women seeking to keep their identities hidden in a gender bias suit against Jones Day argued Thursday that it should be an easy decision for the federal judge handling the matter.
The Sanford Heisler Sharp attorneys representing former California Jones Day associates Nilab Rahyar Tolton and Andrea Mazingo and four unnamed women said that the firm's lawyers fell short of a crucial requirement that they confer with the plaintiffs about anonymity before seeking judicial intervention.
“Had Jones Day not flouted its threshold obligation to meet and confer with plaintiffs, many if not all of its concerns about plaintiffs' pseudonymity might have been alleviated. Jones Day's failure to even acknowledge, let alone fulfill this basic requirement is, by itself, sufficient basis to deny its motion,” they said in a motion filed late Thursday night in Washington, D.C., federal court.
Jones Day earlier this week asked U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss to unmask the four women, arguing that the use of pseudonyms in the litigation prevents the public from fully evaluating their allegations and credibility.
But the plaintiffs responded that the firm failed to comply with a local rule mandating that before filing any “non-dispositive motion,” counsel must meet with opposing counsel in a good-faith effort to reach a resolution or narrow the scope of disagreement.
They noted that such a meeting might have helped navigate a solution to some of Jones Day's concerns, such as the obstacles the firm faced in pursuing an internal investigation while the plaintiffs remained under a pseudonym.
The filing also addressed the merits of the four women's desire to remain anonymous. The attorneys emphasized that their position in the early stages of their legal career raised the stakes over the public disclosure of their identities, and that the alternative of a protective order would not be able to ensure that “relevant but sensitive facts,” such as one of the plaintiff's miscarriage, would remain under wraps.
Consequently, the women could conceivably be branded with a “scarlet letter” that would result in them being blacklisted from other firms, according to the filing.
The women also blasted Jones Day for its assertion, in the table of contents, that “Secrecy Is Prejudicial to Jones Day,” suggesting the firm was being hypocritical.
They quoted the firm's website: ”[W]hat is sometimes critically referred to by those outside Jones Day as a 'lack of transparency' is almost universally viewed inside Jones Day as one of its great strengths.”
“It's newfound interest in transparency thus smacks of an ulterior motive; how consistently it abides by this battlefield conversion will likely become apparent as this case moves into the discovery phase,” the women said.
A spokesman for Jones Day did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|Read More
Jones Day Presses Plaintiffs to Go Public in 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 AllPaul Weiss Promotes Into Both Partner Tiers Amid 'Existential War for Talent'
5 minute readSteptoe Offers Associates New Flexible Billable Hour Tracks in Revamped Comp System
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Suspected Shooter of UnitedHealthcare CEO Is Charged With Murder in New York. Now What?
- 2Compliance in the Peer-to-Peer Payment Landscape
- 3What To Do If ICE Comes to Your Business
- 4Norton Rose Fulbright Taps New Office Leaders in Houston
- 5Ruling Ends Lengthy Court of Appeals Election Challenge
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