BigLaw firm seeks sanctions against plaintiff, firm in suit alleging 'mommy track' bias
Photo from Shutterstock.com.
Morrison & Foerster has filed a sanctions motion alleging that the law firm that sued it for alleged “mommy track” gender bias added a plaintiff, despite a warning that she did not have a viable claim.
The motion, filed Monday, seeks dismissal of the claim filed by the plaintiff, known as Jane Doe 4, as well as an award of attorney fees, the Recorder reports.
Sanford Heisler Sharp filed the initial lawsuit last year on behalf of three Jane Doe plaintiffs. They had alleged that Morrison & Foerster creates unrealistic work expectations for lawyer moms while giving them insufficient work and opportunities to meet those expectations.
Sanford Heisler filed an amended suit in January adding Jane Doe 4 and two other plaintiffs. The amended suit had alleged that Jane Doe 4, an associate, was fired two months before her baby was due and was coerced into signing a release of claims.
Morrison & Foerster said Jane Doe 4 was fired because of performance deficiencies.
According to the sanctions motion, Jane Doe 4 negotiated a better severance package than the one initially offered and had consulted a lawyer about her termination. As part of the deal, Jane Doe 4 agreed to release “most (if not all) of the claims she now seeks to bring against” Morrison & Foerster, according to the sanctions motion.
Jane Doe 4 had asserted that the release of claims should be rescinded because of economic duress caused by financial uncertainty at a time when she was pregnant. But her representation by counsel who negotiated a better deal makes her claims “knowingly baseless,” the motion said.
The sanctions motion accuses Sanford Heisler of failing to conduct a reasonable and competent inquiry into the truth of Jane Doe 4’s claims. Sanford Heisler “disregarded the gaping factual holes in Jane Doe 4’s story and nonexistence of a feasible legal theory,” the motion alleged.
In a statement, Deborah Marcuse, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said Morrison & Foerster had demanded that Jane Doe 4 sign away her legal rights or give up five months of paid maternity leave. That constituted undue influence and duress, Marcuse said in the statement provided to the ABA Journal.
“MoFo has filed a baseless motion for sanctions, which is itself sanctionable conduct by MoFo,” Marcuse said.
Sixth paragraph clarified April 20 to read that Jane Doe 4 consulted a lawyer about her termination and negotiated a better deal on her own.
