Jones Day, Married Lawyers to Brief Discovery on Damages Issues

Jones Day and two married former associates suing it for alleged parental leave bias must explain why discovery on the husband’s damages for wrongful discharge should or shouldn’t wait until later in the case, a D.C. federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Mark Savignac told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that the requested discovery related to his lost wages after he was allegedly fired in retaliation for sending an email complaining about gender inequity in Jones Day’s parental leave policy.

He would have been a firm partner by now if he hadn’t been fired, he says. He should therefore be allowed to recover, and thus explore through discovery, how much Jones Day pays partners at the level he would otherwise currently be if not for his illegal firing, Savignac said.

Jones Day countered that it was too speculative to assume Savignac would have made partner if he hadn’t been fired. Savignac had only been with the firm for about two years at that point, and there’s no way to know if he would have been elevated or if his partnership credentials would have been deemed lacking if he’d never sent the email, it said.

The parties should finish discovery on the merits of the claims he and wife Julia Sheketoff asserted in their August 2019 lawsuit before drilling down to potential damages issues, the firm said.

Partnership discovery also isn’t relevant to Savignac’s potential wrongful discharge damages because he was only an associate when he was fired and soon found a comparable position with another firm, Jones Day said.

The couple should need to show a lot more before they can force Jones Day to reveal its “highly confidential” partnership pay and related data, which also implicates the privacy interests of individual partners, the firm said.

Judge Randolph D. Moss said briefing on that issue is needed, telling Jones Day he wasn’t “convinced” it’s right on the law regarding the bifurcation of discovery into separate stages focusing on liability and then damages.

The judge said that briefing should also address whether discovery on the issue of potential punitive damages and Jones Day’s wealth should wait until later in the case.

The firm said the relevance of discovery on punitive damages is tied to whether it asserts a limited ability to pay any penalty a jury might impose, but the firm hasn’t yet decided whether to raise that defense.

But Moss said the issue isn’t so narrow.

Punitive damages are also partly awarded to deter future similar bad conduct, so Jones Day’s ability to pay may not be the only reason its relative wealth is relevant to a jury considering the issue, the judge said.

Savignac and Sheketoff represent themselves. Jones Day represents itself.

The case is Savignac v. Jones Day, D.D.C., No. 1:19-cv-02443, discovery conference 7/20/21.