DLA Piper Says Associate Fired Over Performance, Not Pregnancy

DLA Piper LLP says a former senior associate was fired for “a series of increasingly catastrophic blunders” and her lawsuit should be dismissed because she can’t prove her pregnancy bias, leave interference, and retaliation claims.

The intellectual property attorney also shouldn’t get a trial because she “regularly turned in sloppy work product” even though she was a seventh-year associate, the international law firm said Tuesday in seeking summary judgment in the case. The two Intellectual Property and Trademark Group partners with whom she most regularly worked quickly grew disappointed with her abilities and concluded that she wasn’t capable of meeting the firm’s expectations for an associate of her seniority level, DLA Piper said.

Anisha Mehta sued in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in June 2023. The firm only cares “about its bottom line” and fired her a mere six days after she requested maternity leave to avoid the impact her pregnancy-related absence would have on her billable hours, in violation of federal and New York state and local laws, the suit alleged. Mehta said the firing, which occurred during her seventh year, “blindsided” her.

But the undisputed evidence shows the partners with whom Mehta worked were all excited and supportive when they learned she was pregnant, according to DLA Piper’s motion. “Mehta’s own notes reflect that the partner who made the decision” to fire her told Mehta she should use the full period of available leave and to take what she needs prior to transitioning back to work, the firm said.

The blunders that prompted Mehta’s termination included drafting discovery responses for a client that weren’t compliant with federal procedural rules, the motion said. She also failed to prepare for a call with a new client, inserted the wrong company name throughout an internal memo she drafted, and almost “initiated an urgent trademark filing in Singapore, when she was supposed to be making the filing in Switzerland,” the motion said.

Those errors occurred between when Mehta announced she was pregnant and when she was fired and capped her “shockingly poor” performance during her one year with the firm, DLA Piper said. Mehta consistently demonstrated “a poor grasp of the law and lacked good professional judgment” and she tried to downplay her mistakes as “goofs,” the firm said.

Mehta hasn’t come forward with any evidence suggesting any DLA Piper partner discriminated against her or otherwise indicated that they were unhappy she was pregnant and planned to take parental leave, according to the motion.

The case is before Judge Analisa Torres.

Wigdor LLP represents Mehta. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP represents DLA Piper.

The case is Mehta v. DLA Piper LLP, S.D.N.Y., No. 1:23-cv-04757, summary judgment motion 10/15/24.