Kirkland & Ellis Loses Ground in Fired Female Lawyer’s Bias Case

Kirkland & Ellis LLP and some of its partners lost much of their fight for a federal court to dismiss a female former associate’s claims of gender discrimination.

The court in large part rejected Kirkland’s efforts to end Zoya Kovalenko’s lawsuit alleging sex and pay bias, including denials of a motion to dismiss on all but one ground. It also turned down the firm’s request for consideration of previous dismissal rulings and for relief from a pretrial order, which denied the firm’s bid to gain access to personnel records from her previous firms.

“There already has been more than enough ink spilled on aggressive pleading litigation in this case, and it is past time to proceed to the merits,” said Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. with the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendants brought a “duplicative” motion for reconsideration, Gilliam said, and they haven’t “come close to showing that the Court failed to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments.”

Kovalenko brought her first complaint against Kirkland—the largest law firm in the world by gross revenues—in October of 2022. She alleged that the defendants, which included several firm partners and some of their individual professional corporations, fired her in 2021 for complaining of sex-based discrimination she experienced and witnessed at the firm.

Kirkland argued in February that personnel records from Kovalenko’s former employers Fish & Richardson PC and Paul Hastings LLP were necessary for the firm to defend itself.

Gilliam turned down those arguments and said that “it was not clear error or contrary to law” for a different judge to determine that obtaining personnel documents would implicate Kovalenko’s privacy and weren’t directly relevant.

“The Court agrees that Plaintiff’s performance at other law firms during the four years prior to her employment at Kirkland is, at best, only marginally relevant to her performance and treatment at Kirkland,” Gilliam said.

Kovalenko’s Equal Pay Act claims should be tossed, Kirkland argued, because she had failed to plead that she performed work that was “equal” to any of the five male associates who were alleged “comparators.” She does not identify enough “common” tasks between their jobs, the firm said.

A “significant portion” of the basic responsibilities of Kovalenko and her male associate colleagues was identical, Gilliam said. “In addition, Defendants do not point to any facts showing that additional tasks outside general shared job duties made Plaintiff’s and the male associates’ roles at Kirkland substantially different,” he said.

Gilliam agreed with Kirkland that Kovalenko’s defamation claim should be dismissed as time-barred under California law because it was filed one day late.

Hennig Kramer LLP and Filippatos PLLC represent Kovalenko. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP represent Kirkland & Ellis.

The case is Kovalenko v. Kirkland & Ellis LLP, N.D. Cal., No. 22-05990, Order 9/10/24