Jones Day Facing Lawsuit
Alleging Gender Discrimination
Two law firms with Washington, D.C. offices are going to battle over allegations of gender discrimination against female associates.
Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP reportedly plans to file a class action lawsuit next month against Jones Day, one of the nation’s largest law firms. Sanford Heisler already has filed lawsuits against law firms Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC as well as Morrison & Foerster LLP claiming gender discrimination.
Plans for the class action follow a similar lawsuit filed last summer by former Jones Day partner Wendy Moore, who says the firm uses a performance evaluation system that favors men.
The lawsuit filed in California Superior Court in San Francisco alleges violations of the California Equal Pay Act and the California Labor Code.
“Jones Day’s fraternity system extends to its compensation scheme: a ‘black box’ compensation structure that all but ensures that female attorneys are paid less than their male counterparts,” according to Moore’s lawsuit.
“For example, when a male sixth-year associate recently joined the Trump administration, his federally mandated disclosures revealed that in 2015 he had been compensated $810,000,” the lawsuit says. “This sum approximately equaled Ms. Moore’s compensation as an eighth-year partner (and was well above her starting salary of $740,000 when she joined Jones Day as a sixth-year partner in 2013). For much of its existence, Jones Day has ensured that these disparities continue unabated by forbidding attorneys from discussing their compensation. Jones Day has enforced this policy by retaliating against female attorneys who have sought to address—or even openly discuss—disparities in compensation.”
The lawsuit is Wendy Moore v. Jones Day et al., case number CGC-18-567391, in Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco.
Supreme Court to Hear Maryland Lawsuit
Alleging Gerrymandering by Democrats
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed days ago to hear arguments in a lawsuit accusing the Maryland General Assembly of gerrymandering congressional districts.
The Maryland attorney general appealed to the Supreme Court in November after a federal appeals court ruled the state’s map for the 6th Congressional District was unconstitutional.
The court said the map demonstrated Democrats redrew the map for the voting district to favor their own party in elections. The 6th District stretches from the Washington, D.C. suburb of Montgomery County to western Maryland.
“It is our view that Supreme Court review is needed to provide guidance to the legislature in future redistricting,” a spokeswoman for the Maryland attorney general’s office said in a statement.
A Supreme Court ruling is expected to set new standards for redistricting nationwide.
Book on Boston Marathon Bombs
Shows Lone Wolf Terrorism Rises
A new book that reports on the April 15, 2013 Boston Marathon bombings and trial of the convicted killer shows the attack was only an early example of more coming soon.
Boston's Bloody Marathon uses the bombings by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother as an example of the lone wolf terrorism increasingly encouraged by Islamic extremist groups such as ISIS and al-Qaeda.
Lone wolves refer to terrorists who plot their attacks alone, usually with no organization to support them and no official links to violent groups. There is almost no way to know their next target until they strike. U.S. intelligence agencies call them perhaps the biggest terrorist threat to the United States and its allies.
Boston's Bloody Marathon, by Tom Ramstack, is available on Amazon.com and Barnesandnoble.com.
The Legal Forum is a news service for the Washington area's legal community that also offers job listings and grant writing for eligible nonprofits organizations. If you have questions, or you would like to place an ad, please Contact Us
Letters to the Editor
Conservative Arizona Sheriff
Sues Media for Defamation
Former Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio is accusing major media organizations in a new lawsuit of false reporting about his 2017 criminal contempt citation for allegedly detaining immigrants who lacked visas or residency status.
Arpaio claims in his lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington, D.C. that the media organizations impaired his ability to run for the U.S. Senate.
He seeks $300.5 million from television network CNN, Rolling Stone magazine and online news organization HuffPost.
He says the media defamed him by calling him a “felon” and saying he was “sent to prison.”
More accurately, while Arpaio served as Maricopa County sheriff from 1993 to 2017, he was accused by the Justice Department of discriminating against Hispanics by targeting them for arrest during job site immigration raids and traffic stops.
Arpaio settled most of the claims in 2015 following a court order banning him from further arrests based on race or immigration status.
However, a federal judge cited him for misdemeanor criminal contempt after finding Arpaio continued the discriminatory detentions. The judge was preparing to sentence Arpaio but President Donald Trump intervened in August 2017 by pardoning the former sheriff.
As a result, he no longer has a criminal record and never spent time in prison.
He then ran for the U.S. Senate as a Republican for Arizona’s 2nd District but was defeated this year by Martha McSally. He said in his lawsuit he plans to run in 2020 for the Senate seat vacated by the death of John McCain, R-Arizona.
"Plaintiff Arpaio’s distinguished 55-year law enforcement and political career has been severely harmed, as his reputation has been severely damaged among and with the Republican establishment, which is centered in the District of Columbia," the lawsuit says about the inaccurate media reports.
D.C. and Federal Courts Continue Work
While Government Shutdown Sets Record
The partial government shutdown that started December 22 prompted the D.C. Council to approve emergency legislation this week that will allow the Family Court to continue issuing marriage licenses.
“The inability of District residents, and others choosing to celebrate their marriage in the District, to obtain a marriage license can be highly disruptive to personal lives, particularly where a marriage has been planned to occur in the near future,” Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote in a memo proposing the legislation.
However, the D.C. legislation will do nothing to prevent a more serious problem for the federal courts in Washington and nationwide, which will run out of money Friday.
Only essential personnel who handle criminal cases and a few other vital matters are expected to show up for work.
The federal courts have been financed since the shutdown started by a residual fund from fees but it will be depleted at the 94 federal districts on Friday.
Big Referral Fees
For Little Work
Do you know someone who wants to sell a home, office or other real estate?
If you do, you could earn thousands of dollars with a quick phone call or e-mail. The Legal Forum pays a base fee of $1,500 for referrals to sellers’ property that sells for at least $200,000. Each $100,000 of value to the property over $200,000 gives the person making the referral an extra $100. A $700,000 dollar property value, for example, would earn a referral fee of $2,000.
Your only obligation is to phone or e-mail Tom Ramstack with the name, address, phone number or e-mail address of the seller. In most cases, it should take no more than 10 minutes of your time.
For more information, click the Real Estate icon on the menu above or contact Tom Ramstack at 240-421-6395 or e-mail email@example.com.
The referral fees are offered to anyone in the District of Columbia but only real estate licensees in other states. However, non-real estate agents can receive credits equal to the referral fee toward the purchase or sale of property in Virginia and Maryland.
The brokerage for the Legal Forum is Fairfax Realty at 3190 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 100, Falls Church, VA 22042, phone: (703) 533-8660.
The Legal Forum welcomes letters to the editor at firstname.lastname@example.org, which will be published here.
Supreme Court to Decide if Bladensburg Cross
Is an Unconstitutional Religious Endorsement
Oral arguments are scheduled next month before the U.S. Supreme Court on a freedom of religion case centered on a Latin cross war memorial in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Bladensburg.
The issue is whether the cross represents a non-sectarian memorial to fallen World War I veterans or an unconstitutional state endorsement of a religious symbol.
The First Amendment protects religious freedom but its “Establishment Clause” also forbids government entities from officially supporting religious denominations or their symbols.
The Trump administration recently filed an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to protect the 93-year-old war memorial. The brief says the Supreme Court needs to clarify legal rights to religious displays in public forums.
Lower courts that have applied different standards for defining religious symbols unwittingly encourage “challenges to long-standing displays like the Memorial Cross, which in turn fosters the very religion-based divisiveness that the [First Amendment] Establishment Clause seeks to avoid,” the Trump administration amicus brief says.
800 4th Street SW, No. N517 Washington, DC 20024
Phone: 240-421-6395 E-mail: email@example.com