Wow, the hits just keep on coming for Jones Day. In addition to the class-action gender discrimination lawsuit that’s been filed against the firm (and which we’ve been following closely), they’re now facing a new discrimination lawsuit that goes after the firm’s non-gender neutral parental leave policy and their alleged practice of altering firm photos to make their attorneys more attractive/white. There are a bunch of allegations in the lawsuit which make for a not-so-good look for the firm, so hold tight as I go through them all.
Julia Sheketoff and Mark Savignac are a married couple that both used to work in the appellate practice in Jones Day’s D.C. office. Both former Supreme Court clerks, they say the firm’s parental leave creates an improper distinction between mothers and fathers who seek to take leave, and when Savignac complained about the policy, he was promptly fired. According to the firm’s parental leave policy, biological mothers who are primary caregivers receive 10 weeks of paid family leave as well as eight weeks of disability leave, compared with biological fathers who are also primary caregivers but only get 10 weeks of leave, while new adoptive parents (any gender) who are primary caregivers get the full 18 weeks of paid leave. The EEOC says that an employer may give a biological mother eight additional weeks of disability if it is linked to their physical recovery, but as reported by the New York Times, plaintiffs allege the difference in leave time is based on antiquated assumptions about gender roles:
But in their legal complaint, Mr. Savignac and Ms. Sheketoff argue that Jones Day awards mothers eight additional weeks of paid leave without regard to whether their physical condition warrants it. The plaintiffs write that the policy gives “female associates more time to enable their husbands to prioritize their careers over child care” and “reflects and reinforces archaic gender roles and sex-based stereotypes.”
And the filing points to more than just the policy as evidence of the way the firm reifies traditional gender roles; the complaint alleges a partner repeatedly made fun of the notion of men using parental leave:
The complaint, filed Tuesday, maintains that the firm and some of its partners promoted crude stereotypes about gender roles, with a prominent male partner asking rhetorically, “What would a man do on parental leave — watch his wife unload the dishwasher?” The same partner, the suit claims, teased a male associate for taking parental leave to care for a child.
The complaint also alleges that after Savignac complained about the firm’s leave policy — three days after, to be precise — he was fired, despite having a history of positive reviews:
“I was shocked; we truly never considered that they would fire me,” Mr. Savignac said. “We thought the law was so obvious.”
The firm has denied that its leave policy is discriminatory and said they fired Savignac over his attitude towards the firm:
Jones Day defended its policy, saying it grants birth mothers eight weeks of paid disability leave to avoid having to ask for medical evidence that they are still recovering from childbirth. The firm said the firing of Mr. Savignac had not been in retaliation for criticizing the leave policy, which it said he and Ms. Sheketoff had done in 2018 without repercussions. Rather, it said, it fired him because he had shown a “lack of courtesy” to colleagues and an “open hostility to the firm,” citing his email.
In an additional allegation that echoes other lawsuits against the firm, the complaint also takes aim at the firm’s infamous black box compensation system (yes, I’m going to continue calling it that despite what the firm says about it) saying that Sheketoff’s (who left the firm to work at a public defender’s office last year) compensation was lower than it should have been because she’s a woman:
Separately, the couple contends that the firm paid Ms. Sheketoff less than it would have paid a man because of her gender. “Julia’s salary was cut in relative terms based on a negative review from a partner who, in hindsight, clearly treated her worse because she is a woman,” said the couple’s email to the human resources director included in the complaint.
The firm denies Sheketoff’s salary was impacted by her gender, saying it was lower because of mixed reviews from partners.
And now for the most shocking allegation in the complaint, at least in my humble opinion: the complaint alleges that when Sheketoff had her picture taken for the firm’s website, the final image was edited to lighten her skin and narrow her nose. As the complaint notes, “[t]he apparent purpose of the alterations was to make was to make Julia appear more Caucasian and (in the opinion of the editor) more attractive.” The complaint says they edit the pictures of women at the firm on the reg (pointing to two of Sheketoff’s female friends at the firm) to make them prettier, while men are spared the photoshop treatment. In a perfect illustration on the way intersectionality works, in the case of this bi-racial woman, “prettier” = more white.
You can take a look at the original and edited versions of the picture for yourself:
As former SCOTUS clerks, the couple was once used to bolster the firm’s recruitment of other clerks. Now Savignac says he regrets trying to convince others to work at Jones Day, “I feel bad about having worked to persuade other people who may have been misled.” Well, maybe if they read Above the Law…
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).