At the center of two closely-watched lawsuits accusing Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke of discriminating against woman lawyers is a question that goes to the nature of Big Law partnerships today. Given the business realities of large law firms, should partners be treated as employees, even if they hold an ownership stake in their firms?

The suits, both seeking millions of dollars in damages, generally allege that the law firms unfairly paid women partners less than their male counterparts. And in both cases, the firms have argued that the claims are improper because the lead plaintiffs—former Chadbourne partner Kerrie Campbell and an unnamed Jane Doe plaintiff in the Proskauer suit—fell within the equity partnership ranks at the time of the alleged discrimination. (Following its recent combination with Chadbourne, Norton Rose Fulbright is also named a defendant in Campbell's suit.)

As equity partners, the firms have maintained, the women were partial owners of their law firms and don't qualify for the types of employment protections laid out in the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Those laws, Chadbourne and Proskauer have argued, aim to cover employees, not business owners.