More Women Accuse Ogletree of Gender Bias in $300M Suit
Ogletree Deakins faces allegations of gender bias from a growing number of women who served as shareholders at the labor and employment firm.
May 14, 2018 at 03:13 PM
5 minute read
Three former nonequity shareholders at Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart have joined a $300 million collective action that accuses the labor and employment specialty law firm of operating as a male-dominated hierarchy that puts women at a disadvantage with respect to pay and promotions.
Bulking up a proposed class and collective action initially filed in January in San Francisco, an amended complaint filed May 11 names three new women—all former nonequity shareholders in either Denver or Dallas—who opted into a proposed collective action under the Equal Pay Act. The women join lead plaintiff Dawn Knepper, a former nonequity shareholder in Ogletree Deakins' Orange County, California, office. Knepper moved in February to Buchalter as a partner.
In a statement on Monday, the lead lawyer for the women, David Sanford of Sanford Heisler Sharp, indicated that there may soon be another amendment to the complaint with even more new plaintiffs. Sanford and his firm have been involved in several recent gender bias lawsuits aimed at large law firms, including some that have settled and one that remains pending against Proskauer Rose.
“Many current and former shareholders have reached out to our firm to discuss their experiences while at Ogletree,” he said.
The amended complaint also adds two defendants—current Ogletree Deakins managing shareholder C. Matthew Keen and former managing shareholder Kim Ebert, who left that leadership slot in 2016. As firm leaders, both of the men allegedly contributed to gender discrimination at Ogletree Deakins, according to the suit.
“Ogletree leadership fosters or condones a firm culture that marginalizes, demeans, and undervalues women,” the amended complaint said. “Ogletree's leadership is aware of the firm's inequitable pay, promotion, job assignment, and other practices, but have taken no steps to remedy the root causes of the disparity.”
In a statement provided by an Ogletree Deakins spokesman, the firm said it would “confidently defend” itself in court and that the firm maintains a steadfast commitment to equal opportunity.
“Equal opportunity has been a core principle of Ogletree Deakins since the firm's founding, and we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind—gender or otherwise. We take the allegations filed by former shareholders very seriously,” the statement said. “However, the decision-making process that governs our compensation system is both fair and equitable. In fact, we are proud of our 'open compensation' system under which all shareholders in the firm know what every other shareholder earns—and the factors that support those determinations.”
With the May 11 amended complaint, Knepper is joined by Jocelyn Campanaro and Angelica Ochoa, both former nonequity shareholders in Ogletree Deakins' Denver outpost, as well as Dallas-based former nonequity shareholder Alicia Voltmer. Campanaro and Ochoa—both immigration specialists—left Ogletree Deakins for the Denver office of rival labor and employment law firm Fisher & Phillips, which they joined as partners in September 2015. Voltmer now practices at Lillard Wise Szygenda in Dallas, which she joined in March 2016.
While the amended complaint adds new plaintiffs and defendants, many of the allegations have remained the same since the suit was filed in January. The women shareholders allege that, despite Ogletree Deakins' vast experience advising employers on anti-discrimination laws, it has fallen short on the gender equity front within the firm.
Specifically, the suit alleges that women hold two of nine seats on the firm's board of directors and that men also dominate the compensation committee, and the ranks of its equity shareholders, a group that's approximately 80 percent male. The firm allegedly pays women shareholders $110,000 less on average than their male counterparts, the suit said.
Ogletree Deakins also allegedly favors men when assigning credits for originating or managing work, which tend to have a stronger influence on shareholder pay, according to the amended complaint. Women shareholders allegedly carry out more administrative tasks and “perform the bulk of the actual legal work” on cases, but those responsibilities tend not to make a huge difference in shareholder pay. The amended complaint alleges that Knepper, for example, spent more than 12 years at Ogletree Deakins but was never invited to a meeting to pitch business to a potential new client.
“As female shareholders draft briefs, supervise younger lawyers and non-lawyer staff, and handle a broad range of client demands, the firm selects male shareholders for pitch meetings, conferences, and other business development opportunities that enable those male shareholders to reap origination credit, management credit, and other compensation that is disproportionate to their contributions,” the amended complaint said.
Ogletree's statement on Monday disputes claims that women have fewer advancement opportunities and lower pay. The firm said that over the past four years, the majority of lawyers promoted to shareholder have been women, including eight of the 11 new shareholders announced in January 2018.
“Further, women are among our most successful lawyers, serving in leadership positions as members of our board of directors and compensation committee, office managing shareholders and practice group chairs,” the statement continued. “Of the four elected members of the compensation committee, two are women. All four serve alongside the firm's managing shareholder.”
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 AllNorton Rose Lawyers Accused of Accessing Confidential Material in Internal IT Probe
3 minute read'It's Not About Speed': Forging Strong Legal Department-Law Firm Relationships Starts With Humility, Trust
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 2Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 3McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 4Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
- 5Schools Win Again: Social Media Fails to Strike Public Nuisance Claims
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