More Plaintiffs Added To Astonishing Pregnancy And Gender Discrimination Case Against MoFo
A spokesperson for the firm calls the allegations 'inconsistent' with the firm's values.
Back in April, three women sued Biglaw giant Morrison & Foerster in a $100 million class-action case claiming the firm engaged in gender discrimination against women who are pregnant or have children. The action was initiated by three Jane Doe attorneys at the firm who said when they took maternity leave they were placed on a “mommy track” from which their careers couldn’t recover. Last week, Sanford Heisler Sharp, attorneys for the plaintiffs, filed an amended complaint, adding three more Jane Doe plaintiffs to the complaint.
According to the amended complaint, in stark contrast to its reputation (MoFo was named a Top 10 Female Friendly Firm by Yale Law Women in 2018), taking maternity leave is a “dead end” for women’s careers at the firm:
At MoFo, the mommy track is a dead end. Not only are pregnant attorneys and mothers routinely prevented from advancing with their class years, but the Firm forces women who are or could be mothers to work harder to prove that they are dedicated to their positions and to the Firm, setting unreasonably high expectations for them. Those who avail themselves of the Firm’s maternity leave or flexible work schedule policy (voluntarily or involuntarily) — which permits attorneys to work part-time to care for their newborn children, purportedly without fear of repercussions for their career — are particularly vulnerable. Adding insult to injury, women are often denied even the chance to meet these expectations when they return from maternity leave and find themselves without sufficient work to meet the billable hour expectations set by the Firm.
The complaint goes on to detail specifics for each of the plaintiffs, including one, Jane Doe 5, who was named a “Pro Bono All-Star” by the firm prior to her maternity leave. After she came back to the firm, the complaint alleges all that changed:
Upon returning from leave, Jane Doe 5 learned that she had not been promoted with her peers, nor had she received the corresponding salary and bonus increase that should have accompanied her anticipated promotion. Prior to that, Jane Doe 5’s supervisors had given her no indication or notice that the Firm would not progress her. Jane Doe 5 had no history of performance issues nor had she ever been held back previously during her time at MoFo.
The amended complaint goes on to allege that despite being encouraged to take a flexible schedule in the months after returning from leave, Jane Doe 5 was fired six months after she returned from maternity leave. According to the filing, the partners who communicated the termination were unable to cite specific examples where her performance was lacking. The treatment of Jane Doe 5 — as well as the other Jane Doe plaintiffs — is being called “troubling” by their attorney, Aimee Krause Stewart:
“The material inequities for pregnant women and mothers that the Complaint lays out are bad enough,” said Aimee Krause Stewart, “but the gaslighting, humiliation and impossible choices our plaintiffs describe are even more troubling.”
A spokesperson for the firm refuted the allegations in the amended complaint, and called them “inconsistent” with the firm’s values:
The allegations about our firm in the amended complaint are not true. They are inconsistent with the facts, and our values, policies, and practices. We have fully investigated these claims and they are without foundation. We will vigorously defend our longstanding record of supporting and promoting women and parents.
We have been broadly recognized for our leadership in providing greater opportunity for women lawyers, including being named one of the top family-friendly and women-friendly firms by Yale Law Women and as a “Ceiling Crasher” by Law360, and we exceed the national average in every leadership metric included in Working Mother’s “Best Law Firms for Women” list. Our Firm’s commitment to – and track record on – diversity and inclusion remains one of our proudest achievements and greatest priorities.
Read the full amended complaint below.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).
