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

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., dismissed some claims by former female associates at Jones Day over alleged discriminatory practices at the firm, but allowed others to stand.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia on Tuesday sided with Jones Day in dismissing some of the claims presented in amended complaints against the firm, finding there was insufficient evidence behind the claims, or that the plaintiffs attorneys with Sanford Heisler Sharp did not reasonably show the alleged practices violated the law. However, he found, at this stage of the proceedings, the plaintiffs had provided enough information to the court to let other allegations stand.

Moss's opinion indicates he believes some allegations in their current form wouldn't survive other hurdles, like a motion for summary judgment. But the ruling brings the case one step closer to discovery proceedings, which could bring to light more of the firm's internal practices, including those on compensation.

Moss dismissed some claims alleging a hostile work environment at Jones Day, as well as some named plaintiffs' allegations of Equal Pay Act violations and discriminatory practices for pregnant women or mothers. But he let sex-based disparate impact claims move forward.

The former associates were based in offices in New York City, Atlanta and Irvine, California.

"According to Jones Day, all of plaintiffs' disparate impact claims fail as a matter of law. Although plaintiffs will, once again, face a far steeper hill at summary judgment, the court is persuaded that they have alleged enough to survive defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings with regard to their sex-based disparate impact claims, but not their pregnancy- or maternity-based disparate impact claims," Moss wrote.

He also allowed allegations surrounding Jones Day's "black box" compensation, as well its evaluation policies to survive.

"They have alleged that Jones Day employs a highly centralized, subjective evaluation process in which a consensus statement is prepared by 'cherry picking' feedback from some, but not all, evaluations, and in which complaints about compensation decisions are not tolerated," Moss wrote. "Drawing all reasonable inference in plaintiffs' favor at this stage of the proceeding, the court cannot accept Jones Day's conclusion that each of these elements is necessarily capable of separation for analysis. For example, it is the very alleged secrecy and the quashing of complaints that purportedly allowed the disparate impact caused by the centralized, subjective, consensus evaluation system to continue from year to year."

And on the black box policy, Moss said the plaintiffs "have the better argument" at this stage in the proceedings in claiming that discovery may show that defendant's processes for associate compensation are "not capable of separation for analysis," but they "need not so prove before discovery."

"Here, although a close question, the court concludes that plaintiffs have alleged facts sufficient to support a plausible inference that the challenged policies have a disparate impact on women associates," the judge wrote.

Jones Day, using firm attorneys, has strongly argued against the allegations in the $200 million lawsuit. They have also sought sanctions against the Sanford Heisler Sharp lawyers, alleging the legal team failed to adequately research the claims in the lawsuit before going to court.

Sanford Heisler Sharp has fought that effort, alleging Jones Day used "cherry-picked handful of facts and misleading caricatures" in requesting the penalties. Moss has not yet ruled on the motion for sanctions.

In the opinion Tuesday, the judge found the statute of limitations had run out on some claims, like that of wrongful termination under New York law by former New York associate Katrina Henderson. But Moss ruled not to dismiss a claim that Henderson, who is black, was wrongfully terminated in connection with her race in violation of federal law.

Moss also split in the ruling over alleged Equal Pay Act violations: He dismissed claims by three of the former associates—Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, and Jaclyn Stahl—and found they either did not state a claim or showed they were unfairly compensated compared to male associates. The judge did rule in favor of similar allegations by Meredith Williams, Henderson and Saira Draper.

Read the decision:

Read more:

Judge Hints He Might Rule for Jones Day on Some Claims in Gender Discrimination Suit

Judge Punts on Ruling Whether Jones Day Has to Hand Over Compensation Data in Bias Case

Prior Salary Can Justify Gender Pay Differences, US Supreme Court Is Told

Greenberg Shareholder Accused of Sexual Harassment by Ousted Grammys Chief