A former senior associate at DLA Piper, Anisha Mehta, accused the law firm of discrimination in a Tuesday complaint filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Mehta claimed that the firm fired her rather than allow her to take maternity leave, which she requested in October 2022.
Mehta stated that she had worked at DLA Piper’s New York office for one year before being fired while six months pregnant. She had submitted a request to take maternity leave for part of 2023 but was terminated six days after making the request. Mehta received overwhelming praise for her work as an intellectual property lawyer at the firm, three raises, and a $100,000 bonus for her exemplary performance.
The complaint claimed that DLA Piper’s real motive for firing Mehta was not her performance but to avoid paying her salary for up to 20 months of leave while experiencing a slowdown in client demand. Mehta’s lawyers at Wigdor, a plaintiffs’ law firm that often represents plaintiffs in discrimination and harassment cases, alleged that DLA Piper had engaged in blatant discrimination against Mehta.
DLA Piper is a major international law firm with a global presence. According to Michele Maryott, a partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher who is representing DLA Piper in the case, it has a generous leave policy and an excellent track record of supporting working parents. Maryott stated that the firm is looking forward to having the charge reviewed.
Give your legal career the boost it deserves – submit your resume to BCG Attorney Search now.
However, Wigdor partner Jeanne Christensen criticized DLA Piper for using mandatory arbitration provisions in employment agreements. Christensen said that DLA Piper should litigate the claims in federal court, where they belong, rather than in confidential arbitration. She also called on the law firm to do what was suitable for all its female employees.
The EEOC will now investigate Mehta’s claims, and if it finds that DLA Piper engaged in discrimination, it may pursue legal action against the law firm. Mehta’s case highlights the ongoing challenges pregnant women face in the workplace, particularly in male-dominated industries like law. According to the National Women’s Law Center, pregnant women are often subjected to discrimination and harassment on the job. They may have difficulty accessing the accommodations needed to remain healthy and productive.
This case also raises questions about the use of mandatory arbitration in employment contracts. While some employers argue that arbitration is a fair and efficient way to resolve disputes, critics say that mandatory arbitration clauses limit employees’ ability to seek justice in court and protect employers from being held accountable for their actions.
It remains to be seen how this case will play out, but it serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting workers’ rights and ensuring that all employees are treated fairly and equally. Pregnant women should not have to choose between their careers and their families, and employers must do more to support their employees and create inclusive work environments.
