"It is worth remembering that when DLA Piper claimed that they fired her over " a series of increasingly catastrophic blunders," they pointed to typos that were caught before the documents left the firm and the rather subjective "sloppy work product." As silly as it would be to fire someone for those reasons, it is only fair game if the justification isn't actually a pretext for firing someone over something you can't fire them for. After seeing the evidence, the presiding judge has some doubts:"
"Really bad business move to put someone you think has sloppy work product on an important client's matter. A jury will ultimately decide if DLA Piper was cutting their losses after making a poor personnel assignment on a high-value case or cut a valued employee who was with them for nearly a decade because she was going to give birth"
DLA Piper reduced parental leave by six weeks. A year earlier Anisha Mehta, a seventh-year senior associate, alleges she was fired six days after requesting maternity leave. DLA described the termination as the result of a series of increasingly catastrophic blunders, pointing to typos caught before documents left the firm and what it called sloppy work product. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres said Mehta presented evidence that could reasonably cast doubt on DLA's purported reason for firing her and said the performance-based rationale conflicted with evidence such as raises, bonuses, and Mehta's work for an important client. The case will go to trial to determine whether the firing was pretextual.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]