Three firmwide leaders at Jones Day are responsible for making compensation decisions at the 2,500-lawyer firm, according to the newest filing in the $200 million gender discrimination lawsuit against the firm.

This allegation was made in a Monday filing by a group of former female associates who are seeking conditional certification for their Equal Pay Act claims against Jones Day. The plaintiffs accuse the firm of perpetuating a culture of gender discrimination through its compensation model and leadership structure.

Local office leaders at Jones Day will make recommendations, which can then be modified by managing partner Stephen Brogan, administrative partner Michael Shumaker and partner Traci Lovitt, the plaintiffs said.

"It is this substantial and meaningful involvement by managing partner Brogan and two other firm-wide leaders that makes this case appropriate for certification," the plaintiffs wrote in their brief.

According to the plaintiffs, Jones Day has disclosed that there were at least 23 instances in which Brogan, who is described in an amended complaint as ruling the firm with "unchecked autonomy," overruled the pay recommendations of local firm leaders. In three of those instances, Brogan and his colleagues upped the pay increases given to male associates by $20,000 to $40,000, the plaintiffs added. By comparison, female associates would see their pay go up or down by $5,000, they added.

For the past week, Jones Day has been targeting the Equal Pay Act claims the plaintiffs—Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams, Saira Draper, Jaclyn Stahl and Katrina Henderson—made in their lawsuit, which was first filed in April 2019.

First, Jones Day sought summary judgment on the remaining equal pay claims, arguing that the discovery conducted so far in the case undermines those claims. Then the firm filed its own motion opposing conditional certification.

"In an effort to establish a common legal theory," Jones Day said in a July 15 filing, "plaintiffs argue that Jones Day's compensation system is 'centralized' due to review of all associate pay adjustments by Shumaker, Brogan, and in later years, Lovitt. They say all members of the collective 'challenge the same centralized compensation policy set by managing partner Brogan.' They argue that this 'centralized compensation policy' is what ties together their claims and warrants certification of the claims for collective adjudication." However, the firm said, plaintiffs' "centralization theory Is both legally and factually meritless."

At a status conference Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia gave the plaintiffs until Aug. 10 to respond to Jones Day's motion for summary judgment on the equal pay claims and set another conference call for Aug. 3.

Russell Kornblith, the New York managing partner of Sanford Heisler Sharp and one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, previously told The American Lawyer that the condition certification they're seeking has a low bar to clear. Much lower than the class certification they're seeking for their Title VII claims, he added. 

Jones Day partner Mary Ellen Powers, one of the lawyers representing the firm, accused the plaintiffs of distorting the facts of the case.

"Plaintiffs have blatantly mischaracterized the record," Powers said in a statement. "Jones Day has repeatedly denied that it pays women less than men and denied that all compensation decisions are made centrally by three individuals. No one could read the firm's litigation submissions and fairly conclude otherwise."

Representatives for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

|

Read More:

Jones Day Looks to Dislodge Equal Pay Claims in $200M Lawsuit