'Mommy Track Is a Dead End' at MoFo, Associates Claim in New Lawsuit
The proposed class action is the latest gender bias case brought by plaintiffs firm Sanford Heisler Sharp, whose other law firm targets have included Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne & Parke and Sedgwick.
April 30, 2018 at 12:24 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
Three female Morrison & Foerster associates in California have accused the firm of gender discrimination, alleging in a proposed $100 million class action that MoFo routinely holds back mothers and pregnant women, giving them lower pay and promotion opportunities compared to male peers.
“MoFo discriminates against women by permitting its predominantly male leadership to favor men overtly in pay, promotions, and other opportunities regardless of their qualifications and to otherwise discriminate against women, pregnant women and mothers. MoFo leadership fosters or condones a firm culture that marginalizes, demeans and undervalues women and mothers,” the complaint alleged. Sanford Heisler Sharp, the firm representing the female plaintiffs, said the lawsuit was filed Monday morning in San Francisco federal court.
The suit—which includes claims under the federal Equal Pay Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act and similar California state laws—seeks back pay and damages totaling $100 million.
Morrison & Foerster said in a statement that it rejected the women's allegations. “Morrison & Foerster has a long and proven track record of supporting and advancing our associates as they return from maternity leave,” the firm said. “We vigorously dispute this claim and are confident that the firm will be vindicated.”
The complaint said MoFo runs as a “male-dominated hierarchy” that has particularly negative impacts on women who are pregnant or returning from maternity leave. MoFo, according to the complaint, has embraced a common set of policies and procedures that “routinely holds back” women who are pregnant, have children or take maternity leave—meaning, in some cases, that associates who have taken maternity leave won't be advanced to a higher pay range along with their peers.
“At MoFo, the mommy track is a dead end,” the suit said.
The three lead plaintiffs are dubbed “Jane Doe 1,” “Jane Doe 2” and “Jane Doe 3,” and all are based in California offices at the firm, according to the complaint. MoFo has offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Palo Alto, California.
The lead plaintiffs also allege that they weren't notified in advance that they would be held back in seniority, instead discovering it only after they checked the firm's online employment portal in January and realized their salaries no longer matched others' in their associate class year.
In addition to the three lead women plaintiffs, the complaint seeks to represent a proposed class of all women that have been or will be employed by MoFo starting on June 28, 2017.
“In one California office alone, plaintiffs are aware that, since 2013, at least seven female attorneys have been held back upon their return from maternity leave,” the complaint said. “These policies disparately impact the firm's female attorneys, who represent an increasingly lower percentage of each tier of the firm as title and compensation rise.”
The firm representing the MoFo associates, Sanford Heisler, has led several recent gender discrimination actions against large law firms, including Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne & Parke, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Sedgwick and Greenberg Traurig. The Sedgwick, Greenberg Traurig and Chadbourne cases have settled—the Chadbourne suit, for one, was resolved in March with a $3 million payout to three former partners at the firm led by Kerrie Campbell. The Ogletree and Proskauer cases remain pending.
“MoFo promotes itself as a progressive firm that champions the advancement of women, but that seems to be far from the truth,” name partner David Sanford said in a statement on Monday. “At MoFo, motherhood is a career-breaker.”
Similar to the Proskauer suit, which was moving forward with a Jane Doe plaintiff until her identity was revealed last week as Washington, D.C.-based partner Connie Bertram, the MoFo suit seeks to keep the plaintiffs' names anonymous.
Not only are the plaintiffs' names and offices not disclosed in the suit, but the complaint doesn't name the specific partners at MoFo who were allegedly involved. For instance, sections of the complaint that describe alleged discrimination against Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 3 point to conversations those associates had with the same male supervising partner. That person, who's dubbed “Partner 3,” allegedly “prefers to work with male associates.”
A section of the complaint focusing on Jane Doe 1, meanwhile, refers to two other partners. One of them, referred to as “Partner 1,” allegedly told Jane Doe 1 that “parents tend not to do well” in the associate's particular department at the firm. During the associate's most recent performance review, Partner 1 and a separate partner, “Partner 2,” allegedly urged the associate to “ramp up” her billable hours in light of her return from maternity leave, but then neither partner supplied the associate with enough work to realistically meet her target for billable hours.
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 AllPorsche's Venture Capital Arm Adds General Counsel From Clifford Chance
Bolstering Southern California Presence, Sidley Austin Settles Into Revitalized Downtown LA Office
Trending Stories
- 1More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
- 2OpenAI, NYTimes Counsel Quarrel Over Erased OpenAI Training Data
- 3Saying Your Goodbyes—Ethical Obligations When Transitioning to a New Firm
- 4Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
- 5Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
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