MoFo Files For Sanctions Against Firm, Plaintiff Suing Them For Gender Discrimination
A legal battle against a Biglaw firm is bound to be tough.
The “mommy track” lawsuit filed against the Biglaw firm of Morrison & Foerster is heating up. As you may recall, MoFo was first hit with a $100 million purported class action, alleging gender discrimination as women who take maternity leave are placed on a “mommy track” which is a career dead end, in April of last year. And the plaintiffs just kept on piling on with three more Jane Doe plaintiffs added in January, and another added last month for a total of seven plaintiffs in the case.
Now the firm is making a pretty bold move in response: MoFo filed a motion for sanctions against Sanford Heisler Sharp, the firm representing the plaintiffs, and Jane Doe number 4, alleging the claims brought by Doe 4 are “knowingly baseless.” In the amended complaint, Doe 4 alleges she was informed she was being terminated by MoFo less than two months before she was scheduled to take maternity leave and that she was coerced into signing a release of claims against the firm in order to take her maternity break as planned. It is that release of claims that features prominently in MoFo’s motion for sanctions.
While Sanford Heisler is obviously arguing the release is unenforceable, negotiated when the pregnant Doe 4 was in a vulnerable position, MoFo, through their lawyers Gibson Dunn, are claiming the release should not only bar Doe 4’s claim, but bringing the claim with the knowledge the release exists is grounds for sanctions. Since Doe 4 was able to negotiate a higher severance package than initially offered — she ultimately received five months’ salary after her employment ended and almost six months of benefits — MoFo argues the release should be fully enforced.
From the sanctions motion:
“Morrison does not bring a motion for sanctions lightly, but sanctions are required under these extraordinary circumstances…. The terms of the release underscore what Jane Doe 4’s allegations make clear: Jane Doe 4, an attorney, negotiated for herself generous and substantial consideration in exchange for the release she executed.”
As reported by Law.com, attorneys at Sanford Heisler take a different view. Co-lead counsel Deborah Marcuse calls the filing of the sanctions motion “itself sanctionable conduct by MoFo,” and says the release Doe 4 signed should not be enforced:
“It is regrettable that MoFo made the choice to terminate Jane Doe 4 when she was eight months pregnant, without prior notice. It is reprehensible that the Firm then demanded that Jane Doe 4 sign away her legal rights or give up the five months of paid maternity leave that she was counting on,” Marcuse said. “MoFo’s conduct toward Jane Doe 4 constituted duress and undue influence warranting recission of the agreement she signed.”
We’ll be watching as this legal battle plays out.
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).
