War of Words Follows Class Action Retreat in MoFo 'Mommy Track' Suit
Morrison & Foerster said a decision by two former lawyers to drop their class action claims "validates" the firm defense. But attorneys at Sanford Heisler Sharp say they still allege systemic discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers.
February 18, 2020 at 06:01 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Morrison & Foerster is seizing on the withdrawal of $100 million in proposed class action claims by two ex-lawyers who alleged the firm discriminates against pregnant women and new mothers, casting the move as a kind of vindication.
But the case isn't over, and the Sanford Heisler Sharp attorneys representing plaintiffs Sherry William and Joshua Ashley Klayman outright rejected MoFo chairman Larren Nashelsky's assertion that stripping class claims from the case "validates what we've said here since the beginning."
"Dropping all of the class action and collective action claims, it's a clear indication that there's no supporting fact pattern of any of the systemic issues of gender discrimination that they've alleged," Nashelsky told ALM.
Andrew Melzer, a New York partner at Sanford Heisler, countered in a statement that the plaintiffs' position on the facts haven't changed, and "our clients are currently focusing on pursuing their individual claims based on strategic considerations."
"Plaintiffs continue to pursue allegations that MoFo engages in systematic gender and pregnancy discrimination and seek to address MoFo's broader practices," Melzer said.
Nashelsky and Melzer's comments come days after a fresh round of filings in the Northern District of California litigation. On Friday, William and Klayman sought to file their fourth amended complaint in the legal battle that started in April 2018, this time eschewing class and collective claims. MoFo filed its answer to the new complaint on Sunday.
As of Tuesday afternoon, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley had not formally accepted the plaintiffs' request for leave to file their fourth amended complaint.
William and Klayman's filing reiterates their allegations that Morrison & Foerster systematically discriminates against mothers and pregnant women, including by holding back advancement opportunities from female associates who have taken maternity leave.
"They now face a Hobson's choice: pay a motherhood penalty in the form of slower rates of progression and correspondingly lesser compensation, thus accepting lower pay for substantially equal work requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility to that of their male colleagues; or, in the alternative, follow MoFo's mommy track out the door in hopes of rescuing their careers," William and Klayman said in their lawsuit.
William also alleged that Morrison & Foerster fired her in retaliation less than a week after she revealed herself as one of the plaintiffs. The firm in its answer said she was fired because of "sustained performance failures and low productivity" during an annual review. But William also alleged the annual review was "hastily scheduled" and she had no prior complaints about her productivity.
The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages.
Nashelsky and Morrison & Foerster, meanwhile, reiterated their stance that the plaintiffs' claims have no merit. The firm in its reply said the evidence shows William and Klayman were not discriminated against, but that they "failed to meet the firm's performance expectations." It pointed to another female lawyer who worked in the same finance and projects group in Los Angeles as William and made partner while she was on her second maternity leave.
"Sub-par performance, not discrimination, is the reason Ms. William ultimately was terminated by Morrison," the firm said. Klayman, meanwhile, rejected multiple mentorship opportunities her former colleagues offered her, Morrison & Foerster claimed.
William and Klayman were, at one point, joined by five other women who also claimed to be victims of Morrison & Foerster's "mommy track." But those women settled their claims with the law firm, according to a Nov. 27 filing from Morrison & Foerster's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the plaintiffs' lawyers at Sanford Heisler.
Nashelsky declined to comment on the firm's settlements with those five other plaintiffs. However, he did say the firm was willing to settle the case with William and Klayman if "it made sense for the firm."
William and Klayman publicly revealed their identities two months ago. William was a senior associate in Morrison & Foerster's Los Angeles office while Klayman is the head of Linklaters' fintech and blockchain and digital assets.
|Read More
LA Associate, Linklaters Crypto Expert Move Forward With 'Mommy Track' Suit Against MoFo
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
Jones Day Client Seeks Indemnification for $7.2M Privacy Settlement, Plus Defense Costs
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250