Dechert Says Tech, Not Gender, Spurred Staff Layoffs
In its answer to a complaint alleging sex and age discrimination, Dechert said the real reason it fired two payroll managers was that their jobs could be performed by cloud-based software.
January 30, 2018 at 02:43 PM
3 minute read
In response to two former staffers' discrimination claims, Dechert is arguing that their termination from the firm was not related to age or gender bias, but to technology advances.
In an answer filed Monday afternoon, Dechert said Patricia Gindhart, 58, and Dana Dudek, 55, were dismissed from their jobs because the firm had implemented new technology that reduced the need for payroll managers.
“Dechert moved to a cloud-based application for finance and human resources and
then outsourced its payroll function to streamline processes, improve efficiencies, and implement needed controls,” the answer said. “As a result, the positions held by plaintiffs were eliminated. The decision to terminate plaintiffs' employment had nothing to do with plaintiffs' age or gender or any retaliatory motive.”
Carolyn Short and Sandra Di Iorio of Reed Smith are representing Dechert in its defense.
Gindhart and Dudek filed their complaint against Dechert late last year in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In 2016, Gindhart was a senior payroll manager for Dechert and Dudek was a payroll manager working directly under Gindhart. They worked at Dechert for 28 and 26 years, respectively.
According to their complaint, they were the two oldest female employees in the payroll department when they were fired in October 2016. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued each of them a right to sue in August, after they filed EEOC complaints about their termination.
Gindhart and Dudek claim that while they were working for the firm, administrative leaders would make comments that showed bias against older women employees. The complaint cites several alleged episodes involving Anthony Licata, who was the firm's chief financial officer from 2008 to 2013, and chief operating officer from 2013 to 2014.
In one instance, the complaint alleges, Licata remarked to Gindhart that older women employees were only still working at Dechert because they would be unable to find work elsewhere. Gindhart spoke to human relations staff about the remarks, the complaint said, but no action was taken. The complaint also asserts in a footnote that the HR director who took those complaints was terminated soon after Licata became COO.
In its answer, Dechert denied that Licata made age-based comments.
“Gindhart's termination came on the heels of several complaints she raised with defendant that she was being discriminated against because of her age and/or her sex,” the complaint says. “By way of example, plaintiff Gindhart complained about a culture of bias against older and/or female employees at [Dechert], which included a supervisor calling long-term female employees 'cows' and the encouragement of a 'boys club' that resulted in beneficial treatment for certain younger, male employees of defendant.”
The complaint alleges that members of the so-called boys club were permitted to spend time at the firm on fantasy football drafts, while other employees were not allowed to pursue their own recreational interests during the work day.
In its answer, Dechert acknowledged that Licata and another male member of the finance staff “participated in sports pools,” but otherwise denied that claim.
“Discrimination played no role in Dechert's employment decisions regarding the plaintiffs in this matter,” Short said in an interview Tuesday. “Dechert is committed to diversity and equal treatment in the workplace.”
Neither did Rahul Munshi of Console Mattiacci Law, who is representing the plaintiffs.
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
© 2025 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 AllThe Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election
8 minute readBlank Rome Snags Two Labor and Employment Partners From Stevens & Lee
4 minute readSpecial Section: 2024 Labor & Employment/Workers' Compensation
Insurers Are Misusing IMEs to Prematurely Cut Off Injured Workers' Benefits
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1From Hospital Bed to Legal Insights: Lessons in Life, Law, and Lawyering
- 2‘Diminishing Returns’: Is the Superstar Supreme Court Lawyer Overvalued?
- 3LinkedIn Accused of Sharing LinkedIn Learning Video Data With Meta
- 4Delaware Supreme Court Agrees Insurance Dispute Can Be Retried
- 5New Strategies For Estate, Legacy Planning
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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