Ogletree hit with another gender discrimination suit

Labor law powerhouse Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC faces a second lawsuit by a female former attorney accusing the firm of systematic discrimination against women by restricting their pay, opportunities, and advancement.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday evening in San Diego County Superior Court, alleges that the power structure at Ogletree is a boys’ club and its internal credit system, which determines compensation and advancement, is used to hold women back.

It also accuses the firm of ignoring or undercutting internal efforts to address the problems, and fabricating pretext to silence those who complain.

In an emailed statement, Ogletree categorically denied the claims in the suit by Tracy Warren, now a shareholder at Buchalter in San Diego, and said she was fired after superiors discovered “unprofessional and unethical conduct.”

The same client who accused her of misconduct filed a malpractice suit in Los Angeles County Superior Court.

David Sanford of Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP, who represents Warren, said: “The big picture is that Ogletree breathes the same air as many other firms and corporate America. There is a big problem in this country, and it has to do with how women are treated in the workplace, and it still applies even if you are a partner in a firm.”

Citing women in its leadership and its assertion that more than half its attorneys and promotions over the past five years were women, Ogletree’s statement concluded its attorneys would “confidently defend the firm against these claims as we remain steadfast in our commitment to equal opportunity for all.”

Sanford is also lead counsel in a concurrent federal lawsuit against Ogletree with similar allegations brought by a former female shareholder. A Northern District judge recently removed that case to the Central District, where Ogletree filed a motion to compel arbitration.

The application of an arbitration agreement in that case is under dispute.

According to court documents, the firm sent out the optional agreement but required that employees affirmatively opt out if they did not want to sign, and said failure to opt out signaled tacit acceptance.

Warren, who filed her suit in state court, also opted into that lawsuit. Both are filed on behalf of their named plaintiffs and those similarly situated. She claims the firm manufactured a pretext to fire her because she raised issues about pay disparities and lack of advancement for women. .

“We allege that Ogletree fabricated a story, making our client look bad in the process, and having that story serve as a pretext for an adverse employment action,” Sanford said. “We have no doubt that we can demonstrate pretext” following discovery.

According to Warren’s lawsuit, Ogletree’s advancement and compensation system is based on a variety of credits.

The most meaningful, “origination credits,” denote earnings from a client and are awarded in perpetuity by a committee to the attorney who brought the client to the firm, the suit says.

The other significant credits are called “management credits,” earned by overseeing cases, according to the complaint. Warren alleges that the firm routinely shorted her and other women on those credits.

She also alleges senior men working at the office consistently provide opportunities for such credits to other men while delegating lesser credits for day-to-day casework to women. This, the complaint says, creates a system of perpetual inequity.

Ogletree contends that its system is fair and a point of pride for the firm along with shareholder transparency.

“Equal opportunity has been a core principle of Ogletree Deakins since the firm’s founding, and we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind — gender or otherwise,” the firm’s statement said. “We take the allegations very seriously. However, the decision-making process that governs our compensation system is both fair and equitable. In fact, we are proud of our ‘open compensation’ system under which all shareholders in the firm know what every other shareholder earns — and the factors that support those determinations.”

Sanford commented, “How origination credit is doled out is a critical piece of the overall story.”

“It’s our contention that the people who make those decisions are men, and the decisions they make are subjective, and the decisions they make harm female partners,” he added. “The result of that is pay inequity that is grotesque.”

Another result, he alleged, is that male attorneys advance faster and earn more as beneficiaries of an unequal system of credit distribution.

The complaint states that from 2014 to 2016, male shareholders’ origination credits nearly doubled those of women.

It further alleges that Ogletree frequently bent its own rules to allow men to advance before they met credit requirements for advancement, citing multiple examples by name.

“We’re hoping as a result of this case, others we’ve brought, and others we will bring, that the profession will change,” Sanford said.