In a significant decision for employment law and gender discrimination claims within elite law firms, a federal judge has ruled that DLA Piper must answer parts of a lawsuit alleging she was dismissed for being pregnant. The ruling reopens scrutiny into how top law firms manage maternity, performance expectations, and bias in partner tracks.
Case Background & Allegations
The lawsuit was filed by Anisha Mehta, who formerly served as a senior associate within DLA Piper’s Intellectual Property division in both New York and San Francisco. Mehta claims she was dismissed in June 2023, when she was approximately six months pregnant, just days after requesting maternity leave.
DLA Piper has defended its decision, asserting that Mehta’s performance did not meet expectations for her level as a seventh-year associate.
Mehta counters that her record, including raises, bonuses, and responsibility over key client work, undermines the firm’s stated rationale and provides evidence of discriminatory treatment.
Judge’s Decision: Claims That Survive & Those Dismissed
U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres reviewed the motion to dismiss and declined to toss key claims, permitting Mehta to pursue legal theories under federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws as well as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
At the same time, Judge Torres did not allow all of Mehta’s claims to proceed. Specifically, some retaliation claims were dismissed, while others (including interference under FMLA) will go forward.
In her opinion, Judge Torres acknowledged that DLA Piper had offered a non-discriminatory justification (performance concerns), but found that Mehta had presented enough evidence to raise doubts about the credibility of that explanation—especially in light of bonuses, raises, and high-value client work that may contradict a narrative of underperformance.
Context & Earlier Rulings
This decision builds on prior rulings in the case: earlier, DLA Piper was ordered to produce internal documents concerning past pregnancy discrimination complaints.
In May 2024, a magistrate judge in Manhattan compelled DLA Piper to turn over demand letters and internal investigations tied to at least two other pregnancy-bias allegations dating back to 2016. Those were documents DLA Piper had attempted to shield on grounds of confidentiality.
Mehta’s legal team contended that the history of complaints was highly relevant and could demonstrate a pattern or culture of bias. DLA Piper, in turn, argued that the other cases involved lawyers who did not file formal complaints or suits and thus were not comparable.
Reactions from Parties
Mehta’s counsel, Jeanne Christensen of Wigdor, issued a statement underscoring the principle behind the lawsuit:
“Pregnancy should never be the basis for termination.”
For its part, DLA Piper, via attorney Michele Maryott of Gibson Dunn, said the firm “looks forward to presenting our case in court.”
Implications for Law Firms & Industry
This ruling could have ripple effects across BigLaw and legal sector employment policy. Some key takeaways:
-
Heightened scrutiny of maternity treatment
Law firms may increasingly face challenges to how maternity leave requests are handled, and whether performance evaluations around such periods are fair and neutral. -
Increased importance of documentation
Firms will need to rigorously document evaluations, communications, and decisions, especially where sensitive circumstances like pregnancy are involved. -
Transparency risks
The requirement to disclose internal complaints and investigations may prompt firms to review their internal policies and confidentiality practices. -
Cultural and reputational stakes
Allegations of bias and dismissal tied to maternity can attract negative attention and may prompt clients, recruits, or the public to question firm practices. -
Legal precedents & deterrence
If Mehta succeeds on her claims, the case could deter others from discriminatory behavior and encourage more claims across jurisdictions.
What Comes Next
With the case moving past dismissal motions, discovery will begin—meaning DLA Piper will provide documents, internal communications, and possibly depositions. Mehta’s team will seek evidence of bias, internal complaints, and comparative treatment of other associates.
For JDJournal readers—especially law firm professionals, HR teams, and attorneys—this case is one to watch. It underscores how employment law, firm governance, and gender equity remain deeply intertwined in elite legal practice environments.
Know Your Rights, Know Your Options
Cases like this highlight the importance of workplace protections and finding a firm that values equity and inclusion. If you’re considering a career move, explore thousands of law firm job openings on LawCrossing — and find an employer that champions diversity, supports working parents, and invests in your growth.
