Jones Day Ruling Unsealed in Lawyer Parental Leave Bias Suit (1)

Former Jones Day lawyers will get a trial on whether the firm’s parental leave policy discriminated against male associates because a jury could reject the reason cited for affording new mothers with more time off, according to an unsealed ruling in the closely watched case.

There’s competing evidence on the validity of Jones Day’s explanation for designating eight weeks of the paid leave provided to new mothers as disability-related, following the 1993 passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act, Judge Randolph D. Moss of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said in the unsealed ruling. A jury could find the justification was a cover for sex bias in part because it’s based on the decades-old recollection of the firm’s former human resources director and because Jones Day had a “strong economic incentive to limit” male associates’ benefits under its post-FMLA policy, the judge said.

Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff alleged in the 2019 suit that Jones Day’s parental leave practices discriminated against biological fathers by allowing male employees eight weeks less time off for the birth of a child than female employees could use. Savignac is entitled to a trial on his Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act sex discrimination and Equal Pay Act claims, and the couple are entitled to a trial on their sex bias claim under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, Moss said.

Another issue for the jury is whether the firm considered the eight weeks of disability-related leave it presumptively gave to all mothers following childbirth when it later altered the parental leave it provided to all new mothers and fathers including adoptive parents, Moss said. Jones Day says a purpose of that change was to signal “to the LGBT community, especially gay men who would have to adopt and to accommodate the ‘special’ and ‘unique’ concerns adoptive parents face,” he said.

Earlier Thursday, the court clarified that a docket entry and related order regarding its Sept. 25 sealed ruling mistakenly indicated that summary judgment was granted against Savignac on his interference claim under D.C.'s Family and Medical Leave Act. That claim requires a trial because neither party made “any unique argument” supporting summary judgment in their favor, the unsealed ruling said.

Moss had sealed the opinion to give the parties a chance to propose redactions to protect the privacy interests of third parties and any confidential business information.

Savignac and Sheketoff, who met while clerking for Justice Stephen G. Breyer and worked together in Jones Day’s Supreme Court and appellate practice group, will also get a trial on whether Jones Day retaliated against them when it fired Savignac two weeks after their son was born and three business days following an email complaining about gender inequity in its parental leave policies, the court said. The issues for a jury on Savignac’s claims include whether the email objected to the legality of the presumptive eight weeks of disability leave new mothers were provided as not being tailored to their actual period of disability, or to the fact that male associates weren’t granted the same treatment as female associates with new children, the court said.

And a jury could find Savignac’s allegedly “extortionate” demand for equal treatment reasonable regardless, even if it challenged as unlawful the presumptive disability period, Moss said. Jones Day wasn’t entitled to summary judgment on the ground that it fired Savignac because his challenge to the policy was made in an unprofessional manner, the judge said, leaving that question for the jury.

The “law regarding permissible postpartum leave policies” wasn’t clear, the court said. Although “Savignac did not have a right to threaten to make claims to the press, the public, or a court that he did not have any basis to believe were true,” there’s room to read the “email as merely threatening to take actions that Title VII permitted him to take,” the court said.

Sheketoff’s retaliation claim based on Savignac’s termination warrants a trial, even though she was no longer with the firm, because a jury could find Jones Day’s then-managing partner believed she also had a hand in sending the email, Moss said.

The judge granted summary judgment to the firm on the retaliation claims based on Jones Day limiting the job references it provided to Savignac after he was fired and for statements it made in a press release after the couple sued.

There was no evidence that limiting an employee to one job reference would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining about job bias, Moss said. And the couple not only invited the media coverage that ensued from the firm’s press release by previewing the allegations of their lawsuit in a New York Times article, they also “undoubtedly understood” the media “would cover the litigation in detail and would, in that context, report on precisely the same defenses of poor judgment, lack of commitment, and poor work quality” the firm alleged in its press release, Moss said.

The court also granted summary judgment against Sheketoff on her claims that she was paid less because she’s a woman based on a male partner’s discriminatory performance rating. There was no evidence the male partner’s view of her work “was dishonest or unreasonable” or that “different expectations” he may have had for female associates generally “played a role in Sheketoff’s evaluation,” the court said.

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

The case is Savignac v. Jones Day, D.D.C., No. 1:19-cv-02443, unsealed opinion 10/3/24.