ON BACKGROUND
We are pleased to announce that the Southern District of NY has denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in the matter of Anisha Mehta v. DLA Piper LLP, allowing our claims to proceed toward trial.
The Court found that Mehta “presented evidence that could reasonably cast doubt on DLA’s purported reason for firing her,” as “the decision to fire Mehta [was made] in suspect circumstances, two months after Mehta told [DLA] that she was pregnant, about two months before annual bonuses were to be paid, and while [the] practice group was experiencing an unusual slowdown in billable opportunities.” The Court also found that the reasons provided for Mehta’s termination were “at best, in tension with other evidence in the record or, at worst, plainly contradicted by it.” As a result, the Court denied DLA’s motion for summary judgment on all of Metha’s discrimination claims under Title VII, NYSHRL and NYCHRL. Mehta will also have the opportunity to proceed on both her FMLA interference and retaliation claims, as the Court again found that “there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that DLA did not terminate Mehta solely based on legitimate business reasons.”
ON RECORD
Statement from Jeanne M. Christensen (Partner, Wigdor LLP):
“The District Court denied DLA Piper’s motion to dismiss our client’s discrimination claims under federal, state and city law, and the case can proceed to trial. The Court wrote that Ms. Mehta’s supervising partner, Gina Durham, “made the decision to fire Mehta in suspect circumstances” and “the evidence suggests that Durham may have been concerned about the firm paying Mehta on her maternity leave at a time when Mehta would not be bringing in new clients or billable hours.” The Court also denied DLA Piper’s attempt to dismiss both of Ms. Mehta’s claims under the federal Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), for interference and retaliation. Pregnancy should never be the basis for termination. We look forward to proceeding with this case to secure Ms. Mehta the justice she deserves.”
You can read more about the case here.