Jones Day offices in Washington, D.C. Photo: Diego M. Radzinschi/ALM

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ruled Thursday that four former Jones Day associates can continue to keep their identities hidden from the public—for now—in a $200 million gender bias case against the firm.

But the judge also issued a limited order allowing Jones Day to disclose the women's names to the extent needed to investigate their claims and respond to their complaint.

Amid the arguments over anonymity, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss also implored lawyers for both sides to tread carefully when speaking to press about the two-month-old proposed class action, and he urged them to tone down the bitter rhetoric exchanged in the case so far.

Lawyers at Sanford Heisler Sharp brought the case in early April on behalf of six former Jones Day women associates, including four identified only as Jane Doe, alleging that the firm's opaque compensation model, management structure and culture have led to systematic bias against women lawyers there.

Jones Day sought to compel the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to make the names of all six of the accusers public. At a hearing on the motion Thursday, Jones Day labor and employment partner Terri Chase argued that revealing the names was necessary for the firm to conduct a full investigation into the plaintiffs' claims and to offset “client concerns” stemming from negative publicity.

“There's really nothing exceptional about this case,” Chase said, citing “hundreds” of other employment controversies where the plaintiffs' names are revealed.

Chase said Jones Day had been approached by people with information relevant to the case who knew the two named plaintiffs, California-based former associates Nilab Rahyar Tolton and Andrea Mazingo. Keeping the other accusers' names hidden has obstructed the firm's efforts to respond to the complaint, she argued.

She also asserted that Sanford Heisler Sharp's decision to publicize the allegations in the press had created a negative public perception and a suggestion that Jones Day would retaliate against the plaintiffs—despite placing nothing into the court's record that suggested “any intent, likelihood, or action” of retaliation on the firm's part.

The judge asked Deborah Marcuse, Sanford Heisler Sharp's Baltimore managing partner, whether any of the accusers knew that Jones Day had sought to undermine their ability to get different jobs. Marcuse responded that it was the “belief of some” plaintiffs that Jones Day had done so.

Marcuse pointed to unrelated cases handled by Sanford Heisler Sharp to describe the kinds of retaliation that Jones Day might pursue if the Jane Doe plaintiffs were named. Moss reprimanded her for relying on speculation and noted that the burden rested with the plaintiffs to support such a “serious” charge.

As the back-and-forth in the courtroom grew more heated, Moss told attorneys for both sides he would not find charged language from either side to be persuasive.

“I would encourage both sides to avoid overheated rhetoric in pleadings,” Moss said.

The judge also warned that litigating in the court of public opinion instead of his courtroom does “affect the balance” of the case. Moss said attorneys were well within their rights to talk to the media, but added, “if you do want to speak to the press, there are consequences that come from that.” He did not identify what those consequences could be.

Moss ordered the four unnamed plaintiffs to provide declarations supporting their requests to continue under pseudonyms next month, and also asked for a joint status report by June 19 that would indicate whether Sanford Heisler Sharp intends to amend its complaint to include additional claims or accusers.

In the meantime, he held that Jones Day “may disclose the identities of the Jane Doe Plaintiffs for the sole purpose of investigating the allegations contained in the Complaint and for preparing an answer or dispositive motion in response.”

Read More

Jones Day Bungled Bid to Quash Anonymity, Gender Bias, Plaintiffs Allege

Associates Assail 'Fraternity Culture' at Jones Day in $200M Sex Bias Suit

Ex-Partner Accuses Jones Day of 'Fraternity' Environment, Gender Bias