Morrison & Foerster Trims Some Female Attorneys’ Claims, For Now

Two women among a group of female associates accusing Morrison & Foerster LLP of pregnancy discrimination must replead some or all of their claims, a federal judge ruled.

Jane Doe 5 was too late with her claims under federal and District of Columbia law, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California said May 1. Jane Doe 4’s allegations were insufficient to support her argument that a release she signed was unduly influenced by the dire economic situation caused by her termination, the court said.

Both women may amend their pleadings to try to fix those deficiencies, Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley said.

The women are part of a proposed nationwide class action filed in April 2018. Morrison & Foerster prevents female associates who become pregnant or have children from advancing with their peers despite having various maternity and parental leave polices and boasting about its “work-life programs,” the women allege.

Jane Doe 5 argued that the statutory deadlines for filing a discrimination claim under federal and D.C. law should be extended because she experienced serious complications during a second pregnancy she learned of after being told of her discharge but before it became effective.

She adequately alleged that she experienced “extraordinary circumstances,” but she failed to describe how she pursued her federal claims with reasonable diligence, the court said.

The circumstances she described likewise weren’t extreme enough to meet D.C.'s “non compos mentis” standard for equitable tolling by showing she didn’t understand her legal rights, Corley said.

Jane Doe 4 alleges she and her husband had to move when she was told less than two months before her due date that she was being fired. Morrison & Foerster forced her to decide within two weeks whether to accept its offer of six-months’ maternity leave in exchange for a full release of all legal claims. She “reluctantly” agreed because she felt she had no other option.

That’s enough to show she signed the agreement under “economic duress” and shouldn’t be bound by it, Corley said. But it’s implausible to believe she signed the pact under undue influence “merely because” she was pregnant, the judge said.

Jane Doe 4 also failed to state actionable retaliation under federal or California law, the court said. She didn’t allege Morrison & Foerster provided any prospective employer with a negative employment reference. She only stated that she “believed” it did.

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. 3:18-cv-02542, 5/1/19.