Two Ex-SCOTUS Clerks Sue Jones Day, Alleging Anti-Male Bias
Two married former associates who clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer say the firm discriminates against fathers by providing them eight fewer weeks of parental leave than mothers.
August 14, 2019 at 02:07 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Jones Day doesn’t just allegedly discriminate against women, according to a new gender bias lawsuit filed against the firm this week. A married couple who worked as associates in the firm’s prestigious issues and appeals practice after clerking on the U.S. Supreme Court say the firm’s parental leave policy is unfair to men.
Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff alleged in a complaint filed in Washington, D.C., federal court that while they intend to share equally in raising their son, the firm discriminates against fathers by providing them eight fewer weeks of parental leave.
“Jones Day’s discriminatory policy gives mothers more time to care for and bond with their babies than fathers receive,” said the couple, who met when clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.
Furthermore, the policy “gives female associates more time to enable their husbands to prioritize their careers over childcare than it gives to male associates to enable their wives to prioritize their careers over childcare,” the complaint asserts.
Savnigac and Sheketoff allege that Savignac was unceremoniously fired from the firm in January 2019 after the two sent an email to leadership calling out the policy. He now works as an associate at Steptoe & Johnson LLP.
Sheketoff left Jones Day in 2018, shortly before the couple’s son was born, and now works as an assistant federal public defender in Washington.
Jones Day strongly denied the claims in a statement, asserting that the firm “is devoted to the importance of family and maintains an environment in which our lawyers can practice at the highest professional levels and have rewarding family lives.”
“Among the benefits it provides to parents, the firm gives lawyers who are primary caregivers, regardless of gender, 10 weeks of paid leave and six weeks of unpaid leave after the birth of a child,” the statement said. “Birth mothers are eligible to receive an additional eight weeks of paid leave under the firm’s short term disability policy. For adoptive parents, Jones Day provides 18 weeks of paid leave, regardless of gender.”
The Aug. 13 lawsuit comes in the wake of high-profile gender bias allegations brought earlier this year by former female Jones Day associates who claim the firm systematically discriminates against women lawyers. Jones Day has denied the allegations in that proposed $200 million class action, which is also pending in D.C. federal court.
The latest suit builds on the allegations of discriminatory compensation policies in the earlier class action suit, piggybacking on the female associates’ arguments that the firm’s “black box” compensation system enables the firm to engage in sex discrimination.
Sheketoff claims that while her salary climbed from $300,000 to $525,000 during her four-plus years at the firm, a negative evaluation from a male partner during her third annual review significantly reduced her raise that year. She pinned the poor review on the male partner expecting a degree of deference from her that he did not seek from male associates.
The complaint also adds to the depiction of Jones Day as a “boys club” rife with sexism on the subject of parental leave. Sheketoff said she heard one of the firm’s most prominent partners ask rhetorically: “What would a man do on parental leave—watch his wife unload the dishwasher?”
And Sheketoff, who is biracial, also accused Jones Day of doctoring the photo on her firm bio to make her appear whiter and, “in the eyes of the editor,” more attractive. She said that while the firm also similarly edited the photos of two female friends, it did not do so for any male employees.
But the focus of the lawsuit is mainly on the consequences of the leave policy, which the couple says hurts families that seek to equally divide parental responsibilities and parental bonding while sharing equally in career opportunities.
According to the complaint, while Jones Day structures its additional eight weeks of leave for birth mothers as “disability leave,” some mothers are capable of engaging in legal work within eight weeks of giving birth. Savignac and Sheketoff said that it is not appropriate to give disability leave by default to mothers who might not be disabled, adding that there is no legitimate basis for giving new mothers more time to bond with their children than new fathers.
The couple also detailed a pattern of alleged retaliation against Savignac in response to the letter they sent to the firm’s human resources director and issues and appeals practice leader Beth Heifetz, who is also representing the firm in response to the female associates’ suit. Savignac was terminated within three days of sending the letter, and Heifetz allegedly stood in the way of several partners whom he asked for references for future employment.
Both Savignac and Sheketoff, who are representing themselves, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Jones Day is not alone in using paid disability leave to extend the time birth mothers can stay home with their children, even as more firms unveil policies purportedly aimed at parity between men and women as well as staff and attorneys. Within the last year, Munger, Tolles & Olson, Dechert, Fried Frank, Fenwick & West and Paul Hastings have all rolled out expanded leave policies that include disability provisions for working mothers, and the list likely includes others.
Read More:
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 AllWhy Litigation Demand Might Break Firms’ Boom-and-Bust Cycle
Litigation Leaders: Laura Hoey of Ropes & Gray on Bringing an Industry Focus to Litigation Matters
Talking 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?
Trending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-59
- 2The American Lawyer Names Industry Award Winners
- 3Regulatory Upheaval Is Coming. How Businesses Prepare and Respond Will Separate Winners and Losers
- 4Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 5Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
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