Andrea Mazingo, left, and Nilab Rahyar Tolton, the two original named plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of women suing Jones Day for “systematic discrimination.” Courtesy photo

In Jones Day's most comprehensive response yet to a $200 million proposed gender discrimination class action, the firm flatly rejected the idea that its associates in all geographical markets were entitled to be paid along the “Cravath Scale” and highlighted what it described as the professional failings of several women levying accusations against the firm.

The firm's public reaction to the allegations of six original accusers had been limited to a statement posted on its website, saying it provided women flexibility in their path to partnership and highlighted the leadership roles women play in the firm. But in a 115-page answer to a more expansive set of allegations, Jones Day on Monday attacked claims that women at the firm were systematically underpaid and subjected to a hostile work environment.

“Plaintiffs' pay discrimination claims are based on the misconceived and legally baseless notion that all lawyers in all geographic markets have, at all times over the past decade, been entitled to so-called 'Cravath scale' regardless of the quality of their performance or their productivity,” the firm wrote in the Washington, D.C., federal court filing.

Jones Day also filed a motion for partial summary judgment Monday, asserting that while the plaintiffs' core intentional discrimination claims are meritless, their other related claims don't even bear consideration. The women's New York City Human Rights Law are time-barred, their disparate-impact, retaliation and Equal Pay Act claims are fatally vague, they have no jurisdiction to bring D.C. Human Rights Act claims, and they lack standing to seek injunctive relief, the firm argues.

The motion seeks to strip away the claims of one accuser entirely, saying former Irvine, California, associate Meredith Williams failed to directly allege gender-based discrimination.

In their amended complaint from June, the seven litigants—represented by attorneys from Sanford Heisler Sharp—provided details of their salaries and bonuses during their time at the Jones Day, asserting that its ”black box” system of compensation allows the firm to depart from its stated commitment to reward top performers with pay that matches market leaders.

In Monday's answer, the firm disputed that its compensation system could be characterized as a “black box,” noting that it publishes detailed information on its evaluation and compensation processes on its website and details them internally within the firm. Furthermore, midlevel and senior-level associates participate as evaluators of more junior associates, observing elements of the process from both sides.

It also rejected the plaintiffs' portrayal of managing partner Stephen Brogan running the firm with “unchecked autonomy.” It noted that Brogan's final decisions on entry to the partnership were guided by the input of the partnership committee, composed of 30% women, all of whom took family leave along their way to the partnership. And it said that Brogan's role in associate compensation involved signing off on proposed adjustments after consultations with a slew of other relevant partners.

The firm also said the plaintiffs' allegations of a hostile work environment, while purporting to condemn gender stereotypes, were “entirely built on stereotypical tropes.” For instance, according to the plaintiffs' vision of the firm, women only drank at social events because they were required to do so to fit into the “boy's club,” male partners who were watching dancing at a holiday party when music became too loud for conversation were necessarily “gawking” at female associates “for amusement,” and when men outnumbered women, women were inevitably tokens.

“This warped portrayal of women as weak, powerless, and incapable of making their own choices or taking responsibility for their own actions is as offensive as it is wrong and certainly does not accurately describe the women lawyers at Jones Day,” the firm said.

Jones Day also challenged the plaintiffs' assertions that they had performed at a high level in their assigned roles but had been stymied by a culture where compensation and partnership decisions were tilted against them and other women at the firm.

While it took issue with how all seven plaintiffs portrayed their time at Jones Day, the firm saved its harshest criticism for former Irvine associate Nilab Rahyar Tolton, one of two original plaintiffs who revealed her name at the start of the litigation, and former New York associate Katrina Henderson, who gave notice in June she was joining the suit. 

Henderson, according to the response, never cracked 1,100 hours of client billable work in any year and “struggled with basic tasks.” Tolton “received below-average reviews in four of her last five years” and saw her hourly billings plunge in two years after she took leaves.

“While that is consistent with Ms. Tolton's allegation that she joined Jones Day because she thought she could 'do the minimum' and protect her social life, it is not the type of performance that would have qualified her for 'Cravath pay' at any firm,” Jones Day said.

A spokeswoman for Sanford Heisler declined to comment Monday.

Read More

Blame the Black Box? Jones Day Bias Suit Puts Spotlight on Compensation

'Someone Has to Speak Up': Lawyers Suing Jones Day Say Career Risk Is Worth It