Another MoFo Lawyer Joins Lawsuit Alleging 'Mommy Track' Bias
A new complaint includes new claims under New York law and features a seventh onetime Morrison & Foerster lawyer accusing the firm of bias against pregnant women and mothers.
March 04, 2019 at 05:16 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
A seventh woman has signed onto a proposed $100 million class action accusing Morrison & Foerster of holding back the careers of mothers and pregnant women through unequal pay and promotion opportunities.
Lawyers at Sanford Heisler Sharp, led by chairman David Sanford, filed a second amended complaint Friday in San Francisco federal court, adding further allegations to the gender and pregnancy discrimination case that their clients first brought nearly a year ago. The lawsuit, which alleges that “the mommy track is a dead end” at the firm, came as one of several gender-related discrimination lawsuits brought by Sanford Heisler against large law firms.
The new complaint adds a new plaintiff—an unnamed former associate at the firm identified Jane Doe 7—and brings to seven the number of current and former Morrison & Foerster lawyers who have accused the law firm of placing mothers and pregnant women at a disadvantage.
The amended complaint also adds gender bias and pregnancy discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law and proposes a subclass of women who worked at Morrison & Foerster in New York.
The suit now includes claims from three current female associates based in California, as well as four former firm lawyers based in California, Washington, D.C., and New York. Three of the plaintiffs joined the lawsuit earlier this year in a first amended complaint that laid out the alleged challenges they faced at the firm either before or after taking maternity leave.
All of the women have sued under “Jane Doe” pseudonyms.
Morrison & Foerster has strongly denied the suit's allegations, which the firm says are baseless and run counter to its actual track record in hiring, supporting and promoting women and working parents. In court filings last month, Morrison & Foerster's defense lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher also argued that each of the plaintiffs involved in the litigation were subject to “highly individualized” personnel decisions that make the case unsuitable as a class action.
“Morrison is consistent in its commitment to fair and equal treatment of associates and others, without regard to sex, gender or parenting status. It is dedicated to working with each individual associate on his or her unique career path,” the firm's lawyers wrote Feb. 8 in an answer to the lawsuit.
Monday's updated complaint says Jane Doe 7 worked as an associate in New York until September 2016. The suit says she “excelled in her job duties” and consistently earned positive feedback during her annual reviews prior to taking maternity leave.
Jane Doe 7 ended up taking two periods of maternity leave, according to the suit. After the first, she returned on a reduced-hours schedule and encountered her first negative performance review, allegedly being told that “she did not seem 'committed enough' to the firm.”
Following her second leave period, the suit alleges that Jane Doe 7 saw partners on her team divert chances to do meaningful work to male associates. About three months after she returned, Morrison & Foerster allegedly informed her that it was time for her to move on. The firm offered her a choice between a two-month probation period in which she could prove her commitment or ultimately be fired, or a three-month window in which she could look for other employment before resigning from the firm.
A representative for Morrison & Foerster issued a statement Monday reiterating the firm's view that the lawsuit has no merit.
“Nothing in plaintiffs' filing of an amended complaint changes the fact that their allegations are baseless. We are confident in our defense,” the statement said. “We will continue to be one of the top family-friendly law firms, and our diversity and inclusion remains one of our proudest achievements and greatest priorities.”
Read More:
'Mommy Track Is a Dead End' at MoFo, Associates Claim in New Lawsuit
MoFo Points to Its Track Record in Rebutting 'Mommy Track' Lawsuit
3 Additional Plaintiffs Sign On to Lawsuit Claiming 'Mommy Track Is a Dead End' at MoFo
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
© 2025 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 All2024 Marked Growth On Top of Growth for Law Firm Litigation Practices. Is a Cooldown in the Offing for 2025?
Big Company Insiders See Technology-Related Disputes Teed Up for 2025
Litigation Leaders: Jason Leckerman of Ballard Spahr on Growing the Department by a Third Via Merger with Lane Powell
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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