Jones Day Couple Seeks Win, Sanctions in Leave, Pay Bias Lawsuit

Two married former Jones Day associates say they’ve proved their paternity leave bias and retaliatory firing claims, making a trial largely unnecessary in the case.

The same evidence also requires denial of the Dec. 2 motion for summary judgment filed by Jones Day, former managing partner Stephen Brogan, and partners Michael Shumaker and Beth Heifetz, Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff told the US District Court for the District of Columbia Jan. 27.

And Jones Day’s motion for sanctions, which was also filed Dec. 2, likewise is off-base and grounds for sanctioning the firm, Savignac and Sheketoff said in a separate Jan. 27 filing.

The couple allege in the 2019 lawsuit that Jones Day’s parental leave policy is biased against fathers because it gives them eight fewer weeks of paid leave than new mothers. They also allege that sex bias caused Sheketoff to get a smaller bonus in 2017 than she should have received, that Savignac was fired in retaliation for complaining about the leave bias, and that a press release Jones Day issued after the couple sued likewise was retaliatory.

Beyond Dispute

“Discovery has confirmed beyond genuine dispute” that Jones Day’s parental leave policy is based on sexist “gender roles” and violates the law, which requires that disability leave for new mothers be limited to their period of actual disability, Savignac and Sheketoff said.

The policy is founded on the stereotypical assumption that every woman will be disabled for eight weeks as a result of pregnancy, they said. Though Jones Day said that isn’t so, “virtually all associates who give birth in fact take the full” extra eights weeks of disability-based leave and human resources assumes that they will, the couple said.

Jones Day’s corporate representative testified that mothers who are able to return to work in less than eight weeks “nonetheless receive eight weeks of leave,” because of the assumption that they’ll be disabled that long, they said. And the firm didn’t tell Sheketoff in 2018 when the couple tried to clarify their leave rights that her understanding that the policy was mistaken, they said.

Discovery also made clear that the 18 weeks of leave for birth mothers are meant to mirror the same period afforded to adoptive primary caregivers, and that only nonadoptive fathers get less, the couple said.

“Jones Day’s own expert understood its policy as Plaintiffs do” and the firm “offers little response to this mountain of evidence,” Savignac and Sheketoff said.

Retalitory Firing

Savignac’s firing after challenging the leave policy was clearly retaliatory and doesn’t require trial, the couple said.

Jones Day effectively admitted the eight extra weeks provided to mothers alone is illegal, making it reasonable for Savignac to believe that it was illegal, they said. And Brogan admitted that the firing was spurred by Savignac’s email challenging the policy, they said.

Sheketoff is also a proper plaintiff on that retaliation claim even though she was no longer with the firm because “she suffered adverse action in the form of Jones Day’s firing of her husband,” the couple said.

Other Claims, Sanctions

A trial is warranted on Sheketoff’s claim that she received unequal pay prior to leaving the firm, the couple said. A jury could believe that a male partner made “knowingly false” assertions about her job performance that caused her to receive a lower pay adjustment than she deserved and that the false assertions were spurred by sex bias, they said.

Savignac’s claims that Jones Day interfered with his job references after he was fired should also go to trial, the couple said. Artificial limitations were put on the one partner authorized to provide job references and other partners were prohibited from providing them, they said.

A trial could show the denial of a reference could have affected Savignac’s employment prospects and most likely did by making him “a materially weaker candidate,” they said.

Jones Day’s posting “to its website, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter a press release full of malicious falsehoods,” which apparently was intended to destroy the couple’s careers, could also be found by a jury to be retaliatory, Savignac and Sheketoff said. The press release was issued in response their lawsuit and isn’t shielded by litigation privileges or the First Amendment, they said.

And the evidence establishes that their claims aren’t groundless, the couple said. That makes Jones’ Day’s sanctions motion “objectively unreasonable” and merits the imposition of sanctions against the firm, they said.

Savignac and Sheketoff represent themselves. Jones Day represents itself and the individual defendants.

The case is Savignac v. Jones Day, D.D.C., No. 1:19-cv-02443, motions on summary judgment 1/27/23.