In 'Mommy Track' Lawsuit Against Morrison & Foerster, 5 Jane Doe Plaintiffs Settle
News of the deals with five of the seven plaintiffs bringing gender discrimination claims against the firm comes as the remaining two Jane Doe plaintiffs prepare to lift their pseudonyms in a Dec. 10 amended complaint in the case.
December 02, 2019 at 06:58 PM
3 minute read
A handful of the attorneys who sued Morrison & Foerster claiming that the law firm discriminates against pregnant women and mothers have reached settlements with the firm.
The claims of Jane Does 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7—five of the seven pseudonymous plaintiffs who sued the firm for gender discrimination—were "resolved" after a mediation session in September according to a joint Nov. 27 filing from the firm's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and the plaintiffs' lawyers at Sanford Heisler Sharp.
News of the settlements comes as plaintiffs prepare to file their latest amended complaint in the high profile lawsuit Dec. 10—a complaint that will lift the pseudonyms for the remaining two plaintiffs. The remaining plaintiffs face a potential fight over class certification in the case, where plaintiffs are seeking at least $50 million in back-pay, at least $50 million in nominal, liquidated and compensatory damages, and at least $100 million in punitive damages, according to the Nov. 27 filing.
Reached by phone Monday afternoon, Gibson Dunn's Catherine Conway confirmed that the firm had settled with five of the plaintiffs, but declined to provide any further details on the deals. Sanford Heisler's Deborah Marcuse said the matter has been resolved with regard to Jane Does 2-5 and 7, and the legal team had no further comment.
Marcuse filed the initial complaint in the case in April 2018 on behalf of three female Morrison & Foerster associates in California. The plaintiffs accused the firm of routinely holding back mothers and pregnant women and giving them lower pay and promotion opportunities compared to their male peers. Three additional plaintiffs—Jane Doe 4, Jane Doe 5 and Jane Doe 6—signed onto the case in January. Jane Doe 7, a former associate who had worked in Morrison & Foerster's New York office, was added to the case in March.
The firm, in its defense, has repeatedly during the course of the litigation pointed to its record of hiring, promoting and supporting women and working parents.
The joint filing from the parties indicated that they believe "that further discovery is necessary to negotiate a resolution, if any, to the claims of Jane Does 1 and 6." According to court filings, Jane Doe 1 is an associate in one of the firm's California offices who claims that she was held back from her associate class after returning from maternity leave, before being unfairly evaluated and encouraged to leave the firm. Jane Doe 6, an of counsel who lived in New Jersey and worked in the firm's New York office, claims she was repeatedly denied promotion to the partnership after taking several maternity leaves.
Read more:
Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to Jane Doe 1 as a former Morrison & Foerster associate. She is currently an associate at the firm.
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 AllJudge Asks: Should Tom Girardi Serve Sentence in a Medical Facility or Behind Bars?
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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