Former MoFo Associates Expand on Alleged Bias Claims Against Firm

Two former Morrison & Foerster attorneys, in order to save their bias claims against the law firm from dismissal, have provided additional detail to a federal judge about their allegedly negative experiences as pregnant associates.

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley dismissed Jane Doe 4 and Jane Doe 5’s bias and retaliation claims from a larger class action earlier this month. The court found the claims untimely and insufficiently supported.

But the women further fleshed out their allegations in an amended pleading filed May 21 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Jane Doe 4 claims MoFo provided negative references to potential employers after being informed she intended to pursue bias claims against the firm. The amended complaint, responding to the court’s criticism that her belief on that issue alone wasn’t sufficient, provides new allegations about her difficulty in nailing down a job offer despite being “heavily recruited.” Proposed job offers were hastily withdrawn or never materialized after multiple interviews, she alleges.

Jane Doe 5’s claims were dismissed after the court found she wasn’t reasonably diligent in pursuing her legal claims. The new filing provides additional medical information about the severity of Jane Doe 5’s alleged pre-natal and post-partum health complications. She says she underwent “periods of disability” when she was undergoing her medical care and this explains her lateness in seeking legal counsel.

The class action, led by seven Jane Does in total, alleges systemic discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers. The attorneys say they were denied advancement opportunities and higher pay compared to their male associates. Several of the Jane Does allege they were pushed out of the firm because of their desire to have children.

Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP represents the women. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents Morrison & Foerster.

The case is Doe v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, N.D. Cal., No. 18-cv-02542, third amended complaint filed 5/22/19.