Judge Allows Parental Leave Bias Suit Against Jones Day to Proceed
A federal judge has ruled that Jones Day must face a lawsuit alleging bias in its parental leave policy. The case, brought by former associates, challenges the firm's additional leave for birth mothers.
In a significant development, a federal judge has ruled that Jones Day, one of the largest law firms in the United States, must face a lawsuit alleging discrimination in its parental leave policy. The decision, made on Wednesday, September 25, 2024, by U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C., allows the case to move forward towards trial.
The lawsuit, initiated more than five years ago, was brought by Julia Sheketoff and Mark Savignac, a married couple who were formerly associates at Jones Day. Both plaintiffs have impressive credentials, having clerked for former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer before joining the firm's appellate practice. This background is not uncommon for Jones Day, which has a history of hiring former Supreme Court clerks and boasts a strong appellate practice, often arguing cases before the nation's highest court.
Judge Moss's ruling permits the couple to proceed with their claims that the firm's parental leave policy discriminates against fathers. The policy in question offers an additional eight weeks of paid disability leave to birth mothers, but not to fathers like Savignac. Jones Day has defended its policy, stating that it provides 10 weeks of sex-neutral paid family leave, separate from its maternal disability policy.
The judge also allowed Savignac to pursue claims that he was fired in retaliation for complaining about the leave policy. Savignac was terminated five months after Sheketoff left the firm, following an email he sent demanding 18 weeks of total leave and threatening to challenge the firm both legally and in the court of public opinion. Jones Day has maintained that Savignac's firing was due to poor judgment and immaturity, not retaliation.
It's worth noting that Jones Day, founded in 1893 in Cleveland, Ohio, has grown to become a global legal powerhouse with over 2,500 lawyers across 42 cities in 18 countries. The firm is known for its significant political connections and has represented numerous Fortune 500 companies. However, it has also faced criticism and controversies, including its representation of former President Donald Trump and issues related to workplace culture and policies.
The case against Jones Day is particularly noteworthy as it's rare for law firm discrimination cases to reach the trial stage. Most such disputes are typically settled or dismissed before reaching a jury. A recent exception occurred in January 2024, when a federal jury rejected claims by a former Davis Polk & Wardwell associate alleging racial discrimination.
While Judge Moss allowed the parental leave and retaliation claims to proceed, he dismissed the couple's allegations that Jones Day underpaid Sheketoff due to her gender. The judge's full opinion explaining the reasoning behind his decision remains under seal for now.
This case highlights ongoing debates about parental leave policies in the legal profession and beyond. Jones Day's unique "black box" compensation system, where salaries are not disclosed, adds another layer of complexity to the dispute. As the case moves forward, it could potentially impact how law firms and other employers structure their parental leave policies in the future.
"I will fight this law firm in a court of law and in the court of public opinion."
As the legal battle continues, it will be closely watched by the legal community and could have far-reaching implications for parental leave policies in professional services firms. The outcome may influence how firms balance the needs of new parents with their business practices, potentially leading to more equitable policies across the industry.
