• Home
  • News
  • Jury Awards $720K to Paralegal, Associate Claiming Pregnancy Bias

Law Firms

Jury Awards $720K to Paralegal, Associate Claiming Pregnancy Bias

Posted Aug 22, 2008 4:57 AM CST
By Debra Cassens Weiss

A jury has awarded about $720,000 in damages to an associate and paralegal who claimed they were forced out of their New York law firm because of their pregnancies.

Garden City, N.Y., tax law firm Siegel, Fenchel & Peddy will only have to pay about $266,000 if the verdict is upheld because of a punitive damages cap, the firm’s lawyer told the New York Law Journal.

The bulk of the award is for the fired paralegal, Maria Moscarelli, who received $203,838 and $500,000 in punitive damages for her pregnancy discrimination claim, the story says. Former associate Jacquelyn Todaro was awarded only $16,499 on a claim that the firm cut her salary before she left on maternity leave. The Central Islip jury ruled against Todaro on her Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim.

The firm had cut Todaro’s annual pay from more than $102,500 to about $77,000. She quit when she returned from maternity leave. She said she felt forced out of the firm because of the pay cut. The firm’s lawyer, Kevin Fox, had argued that Todaro’s pay was cut because her work ethic had declined and her work product "was going downhill."

The firm claimed it had laid off Moscarelli in a downsizing.

Comments

1.

Ellen Barshevsky
Aug 22, 2008 6:14 AM CST

Good decision!  KUDOs to the jury for having the guts to make the law firm pay up fir its discrimination over these 2 women!  It’s high time these men learn NOT TO DISCRIMINATE or objectify women who get pregnant and must be given time off to have their babies.  Congratulations!  We need alot more verdicts like this before the men learn to wake up and smell the coffee.

Flag this comment

2.

Currer Bell
Aug 22, 2008 12:03 PM CST

I would like to know more about what proof the plaintiff associate had - i.e., was it just the timing and the paycut? Or did she have something more smokinggun-ish?  What were the numbers for similarly situated male associates? 

I know that most articles like these garner the “it’s all about the numbers” response, which may have some truth, but it is not the whole truth.  Sadly, partners assume that uterus = baby (now or at some point) = less money in their pocket and will be somewhat preemptive in their remedy to this unsatisfactory equation.  How much work did the female associate get compared to the male?  What about the inclusion factor?  How is the mentoring? 

There are just so many variables, and so many dark corners in which unlawful/unfair discrimination may lurk, that it is simply impossible to say that it is JUST about the numbers.  Numbers may be a factor and, if so, then the decision is at least partially legit.  But I have seen so many female associates “doomed from day one” due to nothing other than their gender. 

My only “emotional” response is this - wouldn’t it be nice if female associates could get pregnant and not have to worry about losing their job/career momentum? 

Just a thought.

Flag this comment

3.

Currer Bell
Aug 22, 2008 12:04 PM CST

I should say “SOME partners,” not all partners.

Flag this comment

4.

CAF
Aug 22, 2008 7:15 PM CST

Blatant discrimination is not OK (I’m a woman and hope something like this never happens to me), but I wish I knew more facts about this case. I know of many women who’ve gone out on maternity leave, and upon returning, they expect their company to bend over backwards to accomodate the women’s new motherhood(letting them come in late/ leave early, allowing them to leave for myriad doctor’s appointments or check with the babysitter 10 times a day, etc.). Unless they agree to specific terms with their employers, those returning from maternity leave shouldn’t expect special treatment just because they have a child now. Firms are paying them for their lawyering skills, not their mothering skills. No one expects these women to completely stop being parents once they’re at work, but some people take it too far.

Again, I don’t know specifically what the paralegal and the attorney did or did not do, if anything at all, so I can’t say for certain whether or not I think their terminations were warranted. This article leads me to believe that the terminations were relatively unjustified though.

Flag this comment

5.

CAF
Aug 22, 2008 7:22 PM CST

One more thing: if the lawyer’s pay was cut because she wasn’t focusing on her work, instead focusing on her impending pregnancy or whatever, then she can’t complain. However, if that wasn’t the case, I don’t think they should’ve cut her salary before she even left.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.