A news article in the Times reports on the landscape for woman law firm partners:
A second case, filed in May against Proskauer Rose and brought by a female partner in its Washington office, is seeking $50 million for "substantial gender disparities" in the firm's compensation practices.
The plaintiff, who asked not to be named in order to protect her personal information, argued that even though she was a partner, the firm had "excluded" her from client matters and refused to allow her "to pitch or to participate in any employment litigation matter for firm clients, rebuffed her efforts to assume a greater leadership role at the firm, tolerated and facilitated an environment where she was targeted for harassment and humiliation by firm leadership, demeaned and belittled by her peers and clients and refused to rectify pay disparities."
Proskauer rejected the claims as "groundless" and accused her of seeking "to squeeze a massive payout from our firm in exchange for her rapid departure and an agreement not to weaponize her blatantly inaccurate charges."
The Times doesn't explain why it agreed to honor this civil plaintiff's request not to be named. It does name Proskauer Rose, creating an unlevel playing field in which one side in the dispute is named, while the other side gets to make allegations from behind a screen of anonymity. Other news organizations have identified the plaintiff by name. It would help to explain that the lawyer is suing as a "Jane Doe," but the Times doesn't even share that information with readers.
The Times also doesn't disclose whether its own labor lawyer, Bernard Plum of Proskauer Rose, who is a member of the firm's executive committee and "former co-chair of the Labor & Employment Law Department," is involved in the situation, which reportedly involves the head of the firm's Washington, D.C. labor and employment practice. Mr. Plum's law firm bio states that "Bernie has, for many years, served as chief spokesperson for numerous employers, including the New York Times."