MoFo Responds To Explosive Pregnancy Discrimination Lawsuit
The firm contends there's no 'mommy track' at MoFo.
The Biglaw firm of Morrison & Foerster may have been hit with a $100 million gender discrimination lawsuit alleging the firm is little more than an “good old boys’ club” that relegates working mothers to the “mommy track” (and the lawsuit is only getting bigger), but that doesn’t mean the firm is taking the allegations lying down. On Friday, the firm filed its answer to the complaint as well as a motion for a judgment on the pleadings.
MoFo is represented by Gibson Dunn in the case, and as reported by Law.com, the firm’s position is that each of the career paths of the six Jane Doe plaintiffs was highly individualized and appropriate:
“Morrison is consistent in its commitment to fair and equal treatment of associates and others, without regard to sex, gender or parenting status. It is dedicated to working with each individual associate on his or her unique career path,” the firm’s lawyers wrote. “Setting aside the fact that each Plaintiff was treated fairly, each challenges highly individualized personnel decisions.”
Of Jane Does 1, 2, and 3 who had their seniority “reclassified” after parental leave, the firm says those decisions were made for reasons unrelated to their gender and, besides, being held back from advancing with the rest of your associate class does not mean the end of your advancement at MoFo:
The firm, however, contends that the decisions to reclassify those associates were made for reasons “legitimate and unrelated to sex, gender, or parental status.” The firm also contends that reclassification isn’t “considered a performance failure or deficiency and it is not a black mark on someone’s performance record.”
“Accordingly, the fact that an associate was reclassified has no effect on his or her bonus eligibility. And it does not prevent future advancement—Morrison associates have made partner after being reclassified,” the firm’s lawyers contend.
As for the remaining plaintiffs, the firm said Jane Does 4 and 5 were fired for a “history of performance deficiencies,” while they contend Jane Doe 6’s maternity leave did not impact her career or the fact she was passed over for partner:
“[Jane Doe 6] was hired with the knowledge that she was weeks away from taking maternity leave, and she took two additional maternity leaves during her time at the firm,” the firm’s lawyers wrote. “She was not penalized in any way for doing so.”
Even though the defense’s filings are recent, the plaintiffs have already have their initial response, via Deborah Marcuse of Sanford Heisler Sharp:
“Our plaintiffs are not in a position to know more than we know now,” Marcuse said. “They and we have considerable anecdotal evidence” that MoFo doesn’t live up to the principles it touts, she said.
We’ll continue to follow this case with interest.
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).
