Sanford Heisler doubles women plaintiffs alleging MoFo bias

Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP doubled the number of plaintiffs to six in an amended gender discrimination lawsuit against Morrison & Foerster LLP while increasing damages sought to $200 million.

Morrison & Foerster has said the allegations are baseless.

The complaint alleges female attorneys at MoFo who become pregnant, have children and take maternity leave are denied opportunities for advancement and higher pay. Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, 18-CV02542 (N.D. Cal., filed April 30, 2018).

Sanford Heisler and its MoFo attorney clients seek injunctive relief for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the California Equal Pay Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the California Family Rights Act.

Former MoFo managing partner Anna Erickson White, who sits on the firm's executive and compensation committees and board of directors, said in an interview Monday, "The allegations about our firm in the amended complaint are not true. We will vigorously defend our longstanding record of supporting and promoting women and parents."

White also said she has been with MoFo for almost 30 years and personally benefited from the firm's policies and initiatives promoting the advancement of women.

She added that in the last five years, almost 50 percent of MoFo's newly elevated partners have been women and about a quarter of them have been promoted while working on a reduced hours schedule.

"It's been a big success in terms of the number of women and parents we have been able to promote and retain at the firm," she said.

The amended suit against MoFo, filed Friday, is part of a wave of gender discrimination class actions brought by Sanford Heisler against several law firms, including Greenberg Traurig LLP, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, Sedgwick LLP, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC and Proskauer Rose LLP.

National law firms have received much attention lately with regard to advancement opportunities for women and attorneys of color.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP's new partner class was made up of only Caucasians and included just one woman.

"Women, and particularly women who have children, are experiencing unlawful and discriminatory treatment, and when they attempt to remedy it, are experiencing retaliation," Sanford Heisler's Baltimore office managing partner Deborah K. Marcuse said in an interview Monday.

According to the amended complaint, Jane Does 1 through 3 still work at MoFo, and when they returned from maternity leave, did not see equivalent salary promotions with their class year and faced an inequitable assignment of work and comparatively limited access to influential partners.

One was allegedly told by a firm partner, "Parents tend not to do well in this group," and another said she was told it's "difficult to progress if you are on part time after being out."

"The allegations of the three plaintiffs that are still at the firm speak for themselves about what their experience has been," Marcuse said. "My sense is the firm itself is responding internally by simply saying the allegations are wrong. It will be interesting to see in discovery whether there have been any policy changes or discussions of policy changes."

When asked if there might be an opportunity to consolidate the current and potential gender discrimination cases across the legal industry, Marcuse said, "I'm not sure consolidation is a possibility, but it's a lovely idea to imagine a defendant class of big law firms. We haven't gotten that creative."

Speaking for the firm, White said, "We have a women's strategy committee, first of all, that has been very involved in policies that help promote and encourage female attorneys and have policies and initiatives that foster work-life balance, parental leave, transition time upon return from leave, care-giving arrangements and more."

When asked if the courts are the best arena to institute change in the legal industry and address discriminatory conduct, Marcuse said, "It's always a question of what it takes for a firm to listen. Thankfully, many of the cases we have don't see the light of day. The ones that come to light are in the grand scheme of things the outliers."

Marcuse said she has seen companies and firms that recognize and investigate claims of gender discrimination and look to fix it immediately without prolonged litigation.

"Sometimes firms and companies are not interested in listening until things get to the level of litigation," Marcuse said. "And that is something we are willing to do when it is necessary."

White disagreed, however, with the notion of litigation as an appropriate solution in this instance.

"The courtroom is not a good arena for dialogue," she said. "Taking us to court does not really promote dialogue nor promote women and parents when the allegations are baseless."