A federal judge’s decision this week to maintain a long-running sex discrimination suit against Jones Day will likely put more pressure on the parties for settlement discussions, observers say. The decision moves the case, brought by two married former Jones Day associates, toward a trial.
However, it’s unclear if both sides will be able to reach a resolution before trial in the 5-year-old dispute. If it does indeed go to trial, it would be unusual, some legal observers say, although part of the reason it may go the distance is the plaintiffs are representing themselves.
“It’s not at all uncommon for sex discrimination cases to survive summary judgment motions. But it’s far less common for such cases to go to trial rather than to be settled. This Jones Day case has been unusually contentious. So, perhaps that’s why the parties haven’t been able to reach agreement on a settlement,” said J.H. “Rip” Verkerke, a law professor and director of the program for employment and labor law studies at the University of Virginia School of Law.
Plaintiffs Mark Savignac and Julia Sheketoff, who met when clerking for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, claim that Savignac was unceremoniously fired in 2019 without warning when his son was only 2 weeks old, after the pair sent an email to leadership calling out the firm’s parental leave policy.
The policy provided 18 weeks of leave for mothers who give birth and adoptive parents of all genders, but only 10 weeks of leave for fathers. The couple claims the policy was discriminatory against fathers.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C., ruled in favor of Jones Day in tossing out claims alleging that the firm discriminated against Sheketoff by paying her less than men in its D.C. office.
Moss also threw out claims contending that the firm violated the District of Columbia Family and Medical Leave Act by terminating Savignac while on leave, and dismissed claims that the firm improperly retaliated against the couple after they filed their complaint by demeaning them in a news release.
However, claims revolving around the firm’s parental leave policy still remain.
Valdi Licul, a longtime plaintiffs’ employment and antidiscrimination litigator at Wigdor, indicated it’s unclear whether both sides will be able to resolve the matter on their own, noting that the case has been “zealously litigated on both sides.” Before last year, the case was held up for several years in sanctions and discovery disputes.
However, Licul said that “the majority of cases, when we get to this point, regardless of whether it’s a counseled case or pro se case, there is some discussion of settlement.”
“I think this case is not the typical pro se case because you have very, very highly intelligent and really legal stars here who are plaintiffs,” Licul said.
It differs from a $200 million gender discrimination lawsuit Jones Day faced several years ago. The six female plaintiffs in that case employed well-known plaintiffs firm Sanford Heisler Sharp to represent them.
Ultimately that case never made it to the courtroom, as all of the plaintiffs gradually dropped their individual gender bias claims, with the last plaintiff filing to dismiss the claims in July 2021. The specifics of how the women’s individual claims against the firm were resolved are not public.
It’s noteworthy that pro se attorneys Savignac and Sheketoff have now gotten past summary judgment, while plaintiffs-side litigators in the other discrimination case against Jones Day didn’t.
However, Susan Carle, a law professor at American University Washington College of Law, indicated that in the current case against Jones Day, Savignac and Sheketoff may not be motivated to settle.
“They’re not paying attorneys’ fees, and they’re obviously doing this because of the principle of the thing, and so I’m sure they think of this as sort of a test case,” Carle said.
If it does go to a jury trial, it’s not likely to “be a very long trial,” Carle added, noting that it appears there are fewer claims left to resolved.
However, the judge’s ruling is sealed at the moment, as both sides have until Oct. 2 to file any proposed redactions before it is made public.
Savignac and Sheketoff and representatives for Jones Day, which represents itself, did not respond to requests for comment on the ruling.