Collective Action Bid Ups the Ante in Jones Day Associates' Gender Bias Case
As they push to expand their lawsuit, the six named plaintiffs--including four based in California--have also added new testimony to back claims that the firm's black box compensation structure is discriminatory.
December 05, 2019 at 10:55 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
The six former associates who have accused Jones Day of systematically discriminating against women at the firm asked a Washington, D.C., federal judge Wednesday to conditionally certify the case as a collective action under the Equal Pay Act.
If granted, the certification would allow the plaintiffs to alert all female associates who have worked at Jones Day since April 3, 2016—three years before they initiated the $200 million lawsuit—of their right to opt in.
The six named plaintiffs—Nilab Rahyar Tolton, Andrea Mazingo, Meredith Williams, and Jaclyn Stahl, who all worked for the firm in California, along with former Atlanta associate Saira Draper and former New York associate Katrina Henderson—have alleged that the black box compensation structure employed by the firm helps enable discriminatory pay.
"Plaintiffs worked in multiple Jones Day offices and practice groups, and each has been subjected to a common compensation practice that results in women earning less than men for substantially equal work," they said in the filing. "All are challenging the same compensation policy, under which every associate's compensation is determined in a 'black box,' with final decisions made by the Firm's Managing Partner, Stephen J. Brogan."
The 27-page brief, filed by the women's lawyers at Sanford Heisler Sharp, bolsters allegations made in earlier pleadings with deposition testimony from the six women. For example, in regard to Brogan's purported final control over associate compensation, Mazingo, who is now an associate at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, stated, "I know that any [salary] recommendations ultimately would have been made to Steve Brogan, who signed each letter."
Henderson, now an in-house attorney with Amazon, alleged that a Jones Day practice leader told her there was "nothing he could do" about her compensation, while Williams, now an associate with Rutan & Tucker, described how she was discouraged from challenging her compensation and requesting a raise because it would "attract the wrong attention" and "reflect badly" on her.
The plaintiffs also sought to support their claims, challenged by Jones Day, that the firm promised pay along the "Cravath Scale" in all geographical markets. Williams, who worked in the firm's Irvine, California, office, said that when preparing to speak with recruits at the firm, she was told that she should describe Jones Day's compensation in terms of "market" pay, and that everyone understood "market" to be synonymous with "Cravath."
Several of the plaintiffs also listed the names of their male colleagues who allegedly outearned them on raises, while other comparative details in the filing were redacted, along with parts of their other allegations against the firm.
In addition to denying that it pledged to pay "Cravath Scale" wages across all geographic markets, Jones Day has highlighted what it described as the professional failings of several women levying accusations against the firm.
The firm has also asked a federal judge to strip the lawsuit down to a core question of whether Jones Day intentionally discriminated against the six women, removing claims under the Equal Pay Act and several other statues and legal theories. The parties are scheduled to meet in court Dec. 16 for oral argument on the subject.
A representative for Jones Day did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
|Read More
Jones Day Remains Locked in Court Battle With Plaintiffs Suing Firm Over Bias Claims
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 AllSouthern California Law Firms Boast Industry-Leading Revenue, Demand Through Q3
Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
Lost in the Legal Maze: How State Regulations Are Hindering Hemp Operators' Success
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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