Biglaw

Jones Day Files For Sanctions In Ongoing Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Jones Day says the plaintiffs' theory of the case is ‘deeply flawed logic.’

By  
on

Jones Day (Photo by David Lat)

No one ever said suing a Biglaw firm was going to be pretty. That’s a lesson the six named plaintiffs taking on Jones Day found out pretty quickly. The latest development has the Biglaw firm seeking sanction against the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

For those who need the primer on the case, the purported class-action gender discrimination case alleges a “fraternity culture” at the firm and unequal pay behind the firm’s notorious “black box” compensation system. There are currently six named plaintiffs in the case (there had been seven, but one anonymous plaintiff dropped out rather than reveal her name). The plaintiffs are spread throughout the country — Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams, and Jaclyn Stahl worked in California offices of the firm, while Saira Draper was an associate in Atlanta, and Katrina Henderson was in the firm’s New York office — and a core allegation is that the same black box compensation systems kept their pay below that of men working at the firm.

But the firm takes issue with the way the plaintiffs have, thus far, attempted to show the unequal pay. In filings they’ve pointed to Jones Day’s statement about paying market salaries, which they define as being in line with the Cravath scale, and the theory is that female associates who make below that mark are being unfairly compensated, as discussed in the deposition of plaintiff Meredith Williams:

“So just sort of combining Jones Day’s representation that top performing candidates are making market, neither myself nor any of the women I know are making market, I have to assume that Jones Day’s representation was truthful and someone is making market, and I would understand that that would be the male associates,” Williams testified.

But, as reported by Law.com, Jones Days takes issue with this theory, calling it “deeply flawed logic” and “pure speculation,” and alleging plaintiffs are aware of facts that contradict that theory:

“Their principal theory of the case—that the proof of discrimination is the fact that plaintiffs did not earn “Cravath scale”—was sophistry on its own terms,” the Jones Day attorneys said. ”And, to make matters worse, plaintiffs knew facts that contradicted their theory and knew no facts that supported it.”

Sponsored

The firm also says the plaintiffs’ theory does not take into account productivity and performance reviews, and how plaintiffs’ performance, not their gender, allegedly impacted their compensation.

In their request for sanctions, Jones Day also takes aim at what they deem a lack of research about the claims and, allegedly, not speaking with similarly situated men at the firm:

“No policy could have precluded plaintiffs’ counsel from contacting the alleged comparators, for example, to determine whether there was a good-faith basis for claiming that they were paid more than plaintiffs for equal work,” the Jones Day attorneys said. “Instead, counsel ‘fire[d] shots into the proverbial dark,’ making a host of baseless allegations which plaintiffs then touted in the media in a (largely unsuccessful) effort to drum up new plaintiffs.”

Attached to the sanctions motion is correspondence that reveals the plaintiffs’ position on the matter. They point to the “wealth of circumstantial evidence” about life at the firm including “gendered comments, gendered criticism, discriminatory allocation of work, discriminatory performance evaluations, and, as a result, severely limited advancement opportunities for women.” They also say Jones Day’s lack of compensation data to back up their point is damning:

“You are in possession of all of the relevant evidence and have known of Plaintiffs’ allegations for more than a year. We expect that you have long since analyzed the firm’s pay data and evaluated the degree to which men and women are paid comparably. We are confident that if you had a basis to deny plaintiffs’ allegations of firmwide pay discrimination you would do so, and that if you had evidence to disprove those allegations, you would produce it.”

Sponsored

Russell Kornblith, partner at Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP representing the plaintiffs had this comment on the motion:

Jones Day’s sanctions motion is a groundless procedural ploy designed to distract from its facially unlawful “black box” pay secrecy policy. We look forward to responding in our papers with the Court.

We’ll be waiting — with popcorn — for the next development in the highly contested litigation.

Earlier coverage: Jones Day Hit With Explosive Gender Discrimination Case
Jones Day Facing Second Class-Action Lawsuit Over ‘Fraternity Culture’ Of The Firm
Partner Whose Behavior Features Prominently In Jones Day Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Is Out At The Firm
Jones Day Wants Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs To Reveal Themselves To The Public
Plaintiffs Throw Shade At Jones Day In Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Gets Yet Another Plaintiff
Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Dropped — Well, One Of Them At Least
Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Spreads To New York
Amended Gender Discrimination Case Brings The Real Scoop On Jones Day Compensation
Jones Day To Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs: You Don’t Deserve To Be Paid On The Cravath Scale
Plaintiff Backs Out Of Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Jones Day Rather Than Reveal Her Name
Plaintiffs In Jones Day Gender Discrimination Case Want It To Be A Class Action

headshotKathryn 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).

Topics

, , , ,