The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington. (Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM)

Jones Day doesn’t just allegedly discriminate against women, according to a new gender bias lawsuit filed against the firm this week. A married couple who worked as associates in the firm’s prestigious issues and appeals practice after clerking on the U.S. Supreme Court say the firm’s parental leave policy is unfair to men.

Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff alleged in a complaint filed in Washington, D.C., federal court that while they intend to share equally in raising their son, the firm discriminates against fathers by providing them eight fewer weeks of parental leave.

“Jones Day’s discriminatory policy gives mothers more time to care for and bond with their babies than fathers receive,” said the couple, who met when clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Furthermore, the policy “gives female associates more time to enable their husbands to prioritize their careers over childcare than it gives to male associates to enable their wives to prioritize their careers over childcare,” the complaint asserts.

Savnigac and Sheketoff allege that Savignac was unceremoniously fired from the firm in January 2019 after the two sent an email to leadership calling out the policy. He now works as an associate at Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

Sheketoff left Jones Day in 2018, shortly before the couple’s son was born, and now works as an assistant federal public defender in Washington.

Jones Day strongly denied the claims in a statement, asserting that the firm “is devoted to the importance of family and maintains an environment in which our lawyers can practice at the highest professional levels and have rewarding family lives.”

“Among the benefits it provides to parents, the firm gives lawyers who are primary caregivers, regardless of gender, 10 weeks of paid leave and six weeks of unpaid leave after the birth of a child,” the statement said. “Birth mothers are eligible to receive an additional eight weeks of paid leave under the firm’s short term disability policy. For adoptive parents, Jones Day provides 18 weeks of paid leave, regardless of gender.”

The Aug. 13 lawsuit comes in the wake of high-profile gender bias allegations brought earlier this year by former female Jones Day associates who claim the firm systematically discriminates against women lawyers. Jones Day has denied the allegations in that proposed $200 million class action, which is also pending in D.C. federal court.

The latest suit builds on the allegations of discriminatory compensation policies in the earlier class action suit, piggybacking on the female associates’ arguments that the firm’s “black box” compensation system enables the firm to engage in sex discrimination.

Sheketoff claims that while her salary climbed from $300,000 to $525,000 during her four-plus years at the firm, a negative evaluation from a male partner during her third annual review significantly reduced her raise that year. She pinned the poor review on the male partner expecting a degree of deference from her that he did not seek from male associates.

The complaint also adds to the depiction of Jones Day as a “boys club” rife with sexism on the subject of parental leave. Sheketoff said she heard one of the firm’s most prominent partners ask rhetorically: “What would a man do on parental leave—watch his wife unload the dishwasher?”

And Sheketoff, who is biracial, also accused Jones Day of doctoring the photo on her firm bio to make her appear whiter and, “in the eyes of the editor,” more attractive. She said that while the firm also similarly edited the photos of two female friends, it did not do so for any male employees. The firm denied altering her photo in a statement, saying that Sheketoff herself selected the precise photo used on the firm’s website.

But the focus of the lawsuit is mainly on the consequences of the leave policy, which the couple says hurts families that seek to equally divide parental responsibilities and parental bonding while sharing equally in career opportunities.

According to the complaint, while Jones Day structures its additional eight weeks of leave for birth mothers as “disability leave,” some mothers are capable of engaging in legal work within eight weeks of giving birth. Savignac and Sheketoff said that it is not appropriate to give disability leave by default to mothers who might not be disabled, adding that there is no legitimate basis for giving new mothers more time to bond with their children than new fathers.

The couple also detailed a pattern of alleged retaliation against Savignac in response to the letter they sent to the firm’s human resources director and issues and appeals practice leader Beth Heifetz, who is also representing the firm in response to the female associates’ suit. Savignac was terminated within three days of sending the letter, and Heifetz allegedly stood in the way of several partners whom he asked for references for future employment.

Both Savignac and Sheketoff, who are representing themselves, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Jones Day is not alone in using paid disability leave to extend the time birth mothers can stay home with their children, even as more firms unveil policies purportedly aimed at parity between men and women as well as staff and attorneys. Within the last year, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Dechert, Fried Frank, Fenwick & West and Paul Hastings have all rolled out expanded leave policies that include disability provisions for working mothers, and the list likely includes others.

Read More:

Denied Anonymity, Ex-Jones Day Associate Retreats as Gender Bias Representative

Jones Day Attacks ‘Warped Portrayal’ in $200M Gender Bias Class Action