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

The plaintiffs who have accused Jones Day of systemically discriminating against women lawyers have expanded on their arguments against the firm, claiming in a 54-page court filing that the firm is trying to avoid court scrutiny of its black box compensation structure that has permitted discrimination.

The filing in the last week augments a number of the claims the plaintiffs—Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams, Saira Draper, Jaclyn Stahl and Katrina Henderson—made in their third amended complaint while countering Jones Day's defense.

The parties are continuing to lob arguments against each other ahead of a major court ruling that could decide how much of the case will proceed. The plaintiffs are asking U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia to reject Jones Day's motion for partial summary judgment, filed in July, in which the firm asserted that some of the plaintiffs' claims in their $200 million proposed class action should be dismissed outright.

"Jones Day cannot rewrite the pleading standard or plaintiffs' pleadings to evade discovery into plaintiffs' well-pleaded claims of its longstanding pattern and practice of discrimination and retaliation," the plaintiffs wrote in an Oct. 24 filing. "Defendant's efforts to avoid court scrutiny into its 'black box' policies and practices should end now with this court's denial of its motion."

Jones Day has argued that New York City Human Rights Law claims made by Henderson, a three-year associate at Jones Day who is now an attorney for Amazon's television production arm in California, were time-barred.

The plaintiffs disputed that assertion in their Oct. 24 memo, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations on the city's Human Rights Law didn't begin tolling for Henderson until mid-July 2016, when she was allegedly wrongfully terminated from the firm.

Jones Day has also contended that the plaintiffs' claims under the federal Equal Pay Act are too vague and should be dismissed. But the plaintiffs argued that, at this point in the proceedings, they don't have to be that specific.

"Defendant's characterization of the EPA claims of plaintiffs Tolton, Draper, Williams, and Henderson as 'conclusory allegations' also misses the mark," their latest court filing said. "Plaintiffs are not required at this stage to provide the salaries of named comparators or to plead detailed, factual information to substantiate claims that they did substantially equal work. Jones Day's arguments to the contrary."

Kate Mueting, a co-chair of Sanford Heisler Sharp's Title VII practice group in Washington, D.C., and one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, told The National Law Journal that they "look forward to proceeding with class-wide discovery in this matter."

Jones Day is also battling discrimination claims from another set of plaintiffs, a married couple who previously practiced at the firm. They are suing their former employer for allegedly maintaining discriminatory parental leave policies and retaliating against the husband when he complained about it.

Most recently in that case, Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff asserted in an 18-page court filing that Jones Day's lawyers have raised new arguments that are "as meritless as the now-abandoned arguments they replace." Savignac and Sheketoff were further responding to attempts to dismiss their case by Jones Day.

Lawyers for Jones Day did not return requests for comment as of press time.