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
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 AllTalking Shop About Faegre Drinker's New Arizona Design Lab with Trial Partner David 'DJ' Gross
How Do You Get Experience Leading an MDL Without Experience Leading an MDL?
Litigation Leaders: Quinn Emanuel's Michael Carlinsky on Training Associates to Think and Act Like Trial Lawyers
Leveling the Playing Field: Insights From Celebrated Women Legal Leaders
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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