Jones Day Wants Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs To Reveal Themselves To The Public
The firm thinks that plaintiffs should be forced to come forward.
The Biglaw firm of Jones Day has a lot of irons in the gender discrimination fires. Former partner Wendy Moore filed lawsuits in both federal and state courts last year, alleging the firm’s infamous “black box” compensation system is used to pay women partners less than their male counterparts. Last month, an additional lawsuit was filed against the firm by six former associates which also goes after the compensation system as well as what is described as the firm’s “fraternity culture.”
The associates’ lawsuit was filed by six plaintiffs, two named — Nilab Rahyar Tolton and Andrea Mazingo — and four anonymous. The Jane Doe plaintiffs received permission from U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Chief Judge Beryl Howell to use pseudonyms. But now Jones Day is objecting to the use of anonymous plaintiffs:
“For one thing, the court’s approval of the pseudonyms itself impugns Jones Day’s reputation by implying, without basis in evidence, that Jones Day would improperly retaliate against the Jane Does if their identities were made public,” the motion said. “For another, pseudonyms prevent the public—including clients, potential clients, lateral recruits, and law students—from fully evaluating the Does’ allegations and credibility.”
And, as reported by Law.com, the Biglaw firm is also taking aim at the public relations strategy of the plaintiffs, which they argue makes keeping some of the complainants anonymous problematic:
Jones Day also said that the plaintiffs’ public relations strategy surrounding the lawsuit made protecting the identify of the four plaintiffs particularly inappropriate. The firm noted that while it has yet to be served with the complaint, the plaintiffs gave it to the media before it was filed, and the two other plaintiffs have spoken to the press about their reasons for bringing the suit. This, according to Jones Day, is unfair to both the firm and the public, who can’t assess the credibility of sources who are publicly attacking the firm without knowing their identify.
“Waging a public relations war is plainly a key part of plaintiffs’ litigation strategy,” it said.
In making the case to have the plaintiffs reveal themselves, Jones Day points to another Biglaw gender discrimination case. The pregnancy discrimination lawsuit brought against Morrison & Foerster was filed by Jane Doe plaintiffs. In that case, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has already made comments during a recent hearing suggesting the plaintiffs in the case cannot remain anonymous indefinitely and said the plaintiffs in Biglaw gender discrimination lawsuits were in the same position as any plaintiff who is named in an employment litigation.
Plaintiffs have until Thursday to respond to Jones Day’s motion.
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).
