A federal judge has kept intact a $50 million gender bias lawsuit against Proskauer Rose, but the Jane Doe plaintiff still faces a key hurdle: demonstrating that, as an equity partner, she's covered under anti-discrimination laws aimed at protecting employees, as opposed to business owners.

Following an in-court status conference on Thursday in Washington, D.C., U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson denied Proskauer's bid for summary judgment and dismissal of the suit. The judge sent the case into a discovery period, directing the two sides to limit their search to evidence that bears on the question of whether Doe should be viewed as a business owner, who would not qualify for protections under anti-discrimination laws, or as an employee who would be protected.

A lawyer who attended Thursday's hearing confirmed that Jackson described Doe's case as an “uphill battle.”

In the case, which began in May of last year, an unnamed female partner in the firm's D.C. office alleges that, compared with male counterparts, Proskauer has short-changed her on compensation and business development opportunities. The suit describes Doe as a practice leader.

Proskauer has denied the claims of gender bias. In June, the firm filed a motion for summary judgment and to dismiss the case, arguing that Doe shouldn't be allowed to pursue her claims in light of Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates v. Wells—a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that laid out a series of factors to determine if someone counts as a business owner or an employee for the purpose of anti-discrimination laws. The Clackamas factors include whether a person can hire and fire others, whether a person supervises others' work, whether a person reports to a superior, and whether a person shares in the business's profits and losses.

Proskauer has maintained that Doe's status as an equity partner at the firm makes her a business owner and that, applying Clackamas, she should not be allowed to invoke anti-discrimination laws designed to protect employees. Responding to Proskauer's motion, Doe argued that “rank-and-file” partners at the firm have little control over its strategic or business decisions and that they effectively are employees who should fall under the protection of anti-bias laws.

While declining on Thursday to grant Proskauer an early exit from the suit, Jackson directed the two sides to embark on curtailed discovery that limits their focus to evidence related to whether Doe is a partial owner of the firm's business who, in turn, doesn't qualify for protection under employment anti-discrimination laws. Jackson also allowed Doe's lawyers, led by David Sanford of Sanford Heisler Sharp, to amend the gender bias complaint.

Reached for comment on Friday, both sides in the case found upsides in Jackson's decision.

Proskauer issued a statement stressing that Jackson's decision called for only limited discovery on “the question of plaintiff's status as an equity partner.” The firm expressed confidence that, once that discovery process is complete, the court would ultimately agree with Proskauer's arguments. Proskauer partner Kathleen McKenna serves as the firm's lead defense lawyer.

“The court issued a ruling limiting discovery in the Jane Doe matter to the question whether the plaintiff is a business owner,” the firm's statement said. “With the roadmap for discovery that the judge laid out, it will become evident that Ms. Doe is a business owner, that her claims to the contrary are without merit and that her complaint should be dismissed.”

Proskauer added that it looks forward to “prevailing at a later date” in the case, and reiterated that Proskauer maintains a fair and transparent compensation system for partners—the firm said it has “nearly identical average compensation between all male and female partners.”

Sanford, meanwhile, also expressed satisfaction with the ruling, saying his side is “delighted” that the judge denied Proskauer's motion to dismiss and for summary judgment.

He also noted that in a forthcoming amended complaint, he plans to add claims, including ones that fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—a provision that bans employment discrimination on the basis of sex, race and other protected characteristics—and reveal the identity of the Jane Doe plaintiff.

“Upcoming discovery will support our view that law partners at Proskauer are employees, not business owners, and are entitled to statutory protections against discrimination. We will soon file for the court's permission to file an amended complaint, which will add a defamation count and a count under Title VII,” Sanford said in a statement. “We look forward, ultimately, to a jury trial in Washington, D.C.”