Less than a week after the suit was filed, a litigation brawl has already erupted in the new parental leave bias case against Jones Day.

The firm has issued a lengthy statement claiming the suit is meritless with “sensationalized” allegations, while the plaintiffs oppose the firm’s request for more time to respond in court and claim Jones Day’s statement, posted on social media, smears their reputation.

Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff alleged in their complaint filed Aug. 14 in Washington, D.C., federal court that the firm discriminates against fathers by providing them eight fewer weeks of parental leave than it gives to mothers. The married couple worked as associates in the firm’s prestigious issues and appeals practice after clerking on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Jones Day quickly issued a comment about the suit, claiming Savignac ignored “both the law and biology” when he argued he should have been eligible for the same leave time offered to birth mothers. The firm also disputed his retaliation claim.

“Jones Day terminated Mr. Savignac’s employment because it concluded that he showed poor judgment, a lack of courtesy to his colleagues, personal immaturity and a disinterest in pursuing his career at Jones Day,” the firm said. Sheketoff, for her part, was “a highly paid associate” despite mixed reviews from partners and contributions to client matters that were “below expectations,” the firm said in its statement.

Jones Day partners Mary Ellen Powers, partner-in-charge for Europe, and Traci Lovitt, former partner-in-charge for Boston, made their appearances in the case Monday and asked U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia for a 30-day extension, citing their busy schedules and a move by plaintiffs that gave them far less time to answer than they otherwise would have had.

But what could have been a humdrum motion heated up after Savignac and Sheketoff fired back Monday evening, asking a judge to reject Jones Day’s request for more time to answer. The couple said Jones Day has known about their claims for months and has made clear on social media, through its statement, that it already investigated and found their allegations lacking.

Just because Powers and Lovitt are busy doesn’t mean the “small army” of lawyers supporting them are unable to respond, the pair said.

Jones Day’s contention that Sheketoff’s claims are frivolous is ”an extremely serious allegation against Julia as an officer of this court that surely would not have been made by a world-class law firm absent an exhaustive investigation,” the plaintiffs said.

The firm’s statement also provides “an inaccurate and misleading statement from (managing partner) Stephen Brogan discussing plaintiffs’ claims and smearing their reputations,” the pair asserted. “Defendants’ tactic of putting off litigation in court even as they attack plaintiffs on Facebook and Twitter also undermines the civil rights laws by deterring others from speaking out against discrimination at Jones Day.”

Sheketoff declined to comment and a Jones Day spokesman didn’t immediately respond to comment requests.

Separately on Monday, Jones Day asked Moss to strike the plaintiffs’ latest complaint in another discrimination case the firm is facing in the same court. In that case, Tolton v. Jones Day, a proposed class of women lawyers say they were discriminated against because of their gender and pregnancies.

Jones Day said that the Tolton plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint last week that included major new allegations without proper authorization.