SEALED MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER denying the20 Second MOTION to Proceed Under Pseudonym. (This document is SEALED and only available to authorized persons.)Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 8/7/2019.(zkt)

order .Order Wed 6:26 PM

MINUTE ORDER: In light of the Court's opinion, Dkt. 39, Plaintiffs are hereby ORDERED to file a second amended complaint disclosing the identity of Jane Doe 4 on or before August 12, 2019. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 08/07/2019. (lcrdm2, )

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27693451/TOLTON_et_al_v_JONES_DAY

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38656913)

might not be much more to tell than the headline at this point tho

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38655859)

if someone wants to use their pacer account and get the actual filing....

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38655873)

District Of Columbia District Court

Judge: Randolph D Moss

Case #: 1:19-cv-00945

Nature of Suit 442 Civil Rights - Employment

Cause 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

Case Filed: Apr 03, 2019

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38656905)

Aug 7, 2019

Main Doc­ument

Sealed Memorandum Opinion

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38656075)

By Braden Campbell

Law360 (August 7, 2019, 4:58 PM PDT) -- The last pseudonymous accuser in a proposed class action alleging Jones Day systematically discriminates against female attorneys had her bid to keep her name secret rejected by a federal judge on Wednesday.

A judge on Wednesday denied a motion by the last of four pseudonymous plaintiffs to keep her name secret as part of a proposed class action alleging Jones Day systematically discriminates against female attorneys. (Getty)

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss denied Doe 4’s motion to proceed under a pseudonym in a sealed order, rejecting the ex-associate’s renewed attempt to keep her name secret weeks after three of her co-named plaintiffs unmasked themselves.

A representative for Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP, which is representing the accusers, declined comment Wednesday. Jones Day did not respond to a request for comment.

Doe 4 is one of several former Jones Day associates behind a $200 million proposed class and collective action alleging the legal giant underpays women, devalues their work and pushes them out when they have children. The suit was filed in April by California associates Nilab Rahyar Tolton and Andrea Mazingo, Doe 4, and three other unnamed ex-associates who identified themselves as Meredith Williams, Saira Draper and Jaclyn Stahl in a June amended complaint. That complaint — the suit’s latest — added a seventh named plaintiff, Amazon Studios attorney Katrina Henderson.

The suit accuses Jones Day of maintaining a fraternity-like culture in which men climb the ladder while women languish. The women also allege that the firm operates with a presumption that female lawyers who have kids "have chosen family over work," sidelining or pushing them out along with women who complain internally about firm practices.

Jones Day had sought since early in the suit to unmask its pseudonymous accusers, arguing that letting them keep their names secret would hamper its legal defense. The Does, meanwhile, argued naming themselves would hurt their reputations in the legal industry and dissuade other bias victims from coming forward.

Judge Moss tentatively let the Does continue under pseudonyms in a late May order, telling them to file supplemental briefs offering more arguments for keeping their names secret. Does 1, 2 and 3 — Williams, Draper and Stahl — opted to unmask themselves, while Doe 4 maintained that disclosing her name would hurt her career in a renewed motion asking to keep her pseudonym for a few more months. It was unclear from the heavily redacted filing why Doe 4 did not request a longer period of anonymity.

Jones Day again pushed back at Doe 4’s motion, arguing that revealing her name wouldn’t hurt her more than suing publicly has hurt “any discrimination plaintiff,” who must generally sign their names to their complaints.

It is not clear from the docket entry for Wednesday’s order how Doe 4 must proceed.

Jones Day has maintained its innocence of the associates’ claims, accusing them in a late July answer to the current complaint of leaning on “stereotypical tropes” while overlooking that they were let go for poor performance or left of their own accord.

The women are represented by Deborah K. Marcuse, Kate Mueting, David W. Sanford and Russell L. Kornblith of Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP.

Jones Day is represented in-house by Mary Ellen Powers, Beth Heifetz and Terri L. Chase.

The case is Tolton et al. v. Jones Day, case number 1:19-cv-00945, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

--Additional reporting by Vin Gurrieri. Editing by Bruce Goldman.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38656117)

District Of Columbia District Court

Judge: Randolph D Moss

Case #: 1:19-cv-00945

Nature of Suit 442 Civil Rights - Employment

Cause 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination

Case Filed: Apr 03, 2019

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38656904)

http://calljensen.com/attorneys/nilab-r-tolton/

What say we, XO?

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38656917)

January 18, 2017: Forging the Path: How to Recruit and Retain Diverse Attorneys (Irvine, California; approved for MCLE credit)

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38657379)

Jones Day is represented in-house by Mary Ellen Powers, Beth Heifetz and Terri L. Chase

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38657425)

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=4318965&forum_id=2#38657475)