Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 1 of 38

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
------------------------------------------------------------- X

CONNIE BERTRAM,
Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ

Plaintiff,

ANSWER TO
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

V.

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP,
Defendant.
------------------------------------------------------------- X

Defendant Proskauer Rose LLP ("Proskauer" or the "Firm"), by its attorneys Proskauer
Rose LLP, answers the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff Connie Bertram ("Plaintiff')
on or about April 25, 2018 as follows:
As to the un-numbered introductory paragraph of the First Amended Complaint,
Proskauer admits that it is an international law firm with 13 offices worldwide, and further
admits that Plaintiff is an equity partner of the Firm, resident in its Washington D. C. office and
head of its Labor & Employment practice in that office. Proskauer denies that Plaintiff has
suffered, or continues to suffer, any "discrimination, retaliation, and other harms."

AS TO THE "OVERVIEW"
1.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that The American Lawyer reported the Firm's gross revenue as
$852.5 million in 2016, with average profits per equity partner of $2.315 million in 2016, and
$2.366 million in 2017. Proskauer refers the Court to the referenced The American Lawyer
reports for their full contents. Proskauer admits that the Firm's partners, who retain ultimate

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 2 of 38

control over the Firm, have-through the Firm's Partnership Agreement-conferred on the
Executive Committee responsibility for "matters of management, policy, and operations."
Proskauer has insufficient information to assess the relative amount of its gross revenues as
compared to those of other law firms throughout the world.
2.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that the Firm is steadfastly committed to equal opportunity and
diversity in the practice of law, corporate social responsibility, and legal justice, and has long
championed the professional development and career advancement of women, including
through its diversity and inclusion initiatives, such as its Women's Sponsorship Program.
Proskauer avers that it has been repeatedly recognized for its commitment to diversity and
inclusion. Among other recognitions, the Firm is shortlisted for the Chambers Women in Law
Awards in two categories, including Most Innovative Gender Diversity Initiative and Law
Firm of the Year in Furthering Women's Career Progression, Talent Management and
Mentoring, as well as being shortlisted for the Euromoney Women in Business Law
(Americas) Awards in several categories in 2018, including best international firm for women
in business law and best international firm for diversity. The Firm is also ranked by Vault in
2017 among the best law firms for diversity overall, for diversity for minorities, LGBT
diversity and diversity for women; and received Gold Standard Certification from the Women
in Law Empowerment Forum in 2015 and 2014. In the past year, women partners have been
recognized as leaders in their fields by The Legal 500, The American Lawyer, Crain's New
York, The Daily Journal, Benchmark Litigation, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, Human
Rights First, and Euromoney Women in Business Law, among others.
2

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 3 of 38

3.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the First Amended

Complaint.
4.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4, and each subpart (a)

through (d) thereof, of the First Amended Complaint, and avers that the Firm's allocation
system, which rewards each partner's overall contribution to the Firm's success and
incentivizes Firm-minded behavior, has resulted in fair and equitable allocations for male and
female equity partners.
5.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 5 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff joined the Firm as an equity partner in February 2013.
6.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 6 of the First Amended

Complaint.
7.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 7, and each subpart (a)

through (f) thereof, of the First Amended Complaint, and avers that Plaintiff received
allocations of Firm profits consistent with her contributions to the Firm and that Plaintiff
misrepresents the contributions of the partners referenced in subparts (a) through (f) of
Paragraph 7 by failing to take into account each partner's respective skill set, expertise, and
other contributions not reflected in the cherry-picked data points to which Plaintiff refers.
Proskauer also avers that Plaintiffs "Overview" is misleading and fails to advise the Court of
certain indisputable facts, including the following:
1.

Plaintiff joined Proskauer in February 2013 with approximately nine

months remaining in Proskauer's October 31 fiscal year (and applicable partnership allocation
cycle).
3

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 4 of 38

11.

During the lateral negotiations that began in 2012, Plaintiff represented

that in the prior three years (2009-2011) while at her prior firm she had a core labor and
employment practice that produced originated revenues averaging less than $4 million annually
and received allocations of approximately $ _ , $
respectively, or on average less than half of what Proskauer would allocate to her in Fiscal Year
("FY") 2016.
111.

Plaintiff claimed that she was seeking to move firms only four years after

joining her then current firm, Cooley LLP (which in turn she had joined after only four years at
her immediately prior firm, Winston & Strawn LLP, and prior stops at other prestigious firms),
in part because she claimed Cooley would not adequately compensate her for a relatively new
litigation she had originated involving allegations of toxic mold in military housing units (and
not labor and employment issues).
1v.

Plaintiff sought-and was given-an allocation guarantee for FY 2013 of

$ - based on expected annualized accrued revenue of $7 million, as well as a signing
bonus o f $ _ , both prorated for the partial year she would be at Proskauer. During the
lateral partner process, Plaintiff was very focused on allocations and Proskauer explained in great
depth its allocation system, which is an intensive process that considers Firm performance, the
totality of a partner's contributions on a host of financial and non-financial criteria, and other
factors, and does not rely on a metrics based formula. In its annual memorandum explaining its
allocation decisions, Proskauer's elected Executive Committee emphasizes this philosophy,
stating that if "metrics were all that counted we could simply ask a member of the finance staff to
multiply one or more of the metric columns by a percentage. The allocation process would take
4

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 5 of 38

only hours but would invariably lead to a ruinous focus on limited, and often inadequate,
measures of contribution."
v.

Plaintiff's claims disregard the allocation system to which she agreed, as

she focuses on those metrics most favorable to her, ignores others that expose weaknesses in the
profitability of her practice, and affords no recognition to non-metric factors critical to the
allocation decisions. Plaintiff also ignores the financial rewards that she obtained by joining
Proskauer. Her annual allocation increased t o $ - in FY 2014 (a 9.8% increase over
the prior year), $ - ( a 6.7% increase over the prior year) in FY 2015 a n d $ (an 8.3% increase over the prior year) in FY 2016, putting her in the top five (5) of Proskauer's
nationally recognized Labor & Employment Department in FY 2016 and ahead of all but three
male partners in the Department. All allocation decisions with respect to Plaintiff were made in
accordance with the factors weighed in Proskauer's system, including Firm performance and
individual metrics like realization and collected rate on which Plaintiff performed poorly.
v1.

Plaintiff also fails to provide a full picture of her originated revenues, the

metric on which she largely bases her claims. While those revenues increased (along with her
allocation) in FY 2014 (to approximately $7.4 million) and FY 2015 (to approximately $9.2
million) (the "Peak Year"), they steadily, and ultimately precipitously, declined, first to $8.4
million in FY 2016 (a decline of approximately 8.8% from the Peak Year) and then to $4.15
million in FY 2017 (a decline of approximately 55% from the Peak Year). Despite the drop in
her originations in FY 2016, Plaintiff received a $ - allocation increase. Notwithstanding
the enormous decline in her originations in FY 2017, Plaintiff received only a $ - (or 2%)
allocation reduction.
5

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 6 of 38

v11.

Based on her credited collections through the first six months of the

current fiscal year, Plaintiff currently is annualizing collections of approximately $3 million, an
approximately 67% plummet in originations from her Peak Year.
vn1.

This precipitous drop was wholly predictable in November 2016 when

Plaintiff first made her claims because the cases that comprised most of Plaintiff's client
originations were well on their way to being resolved (and indeed have now been resolved).
Plaintiff's origination revenues in FY 2018 are therefore projected to be about the same as she
represented them to be in 2009 while at her prior firm, when she received an allocation of$.

-

8.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 8 of the First Amended

Complaint.
9.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 9 of the First Amended

Complaint.
10.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 10 of the First Amended

Complaint.
AS TO "THE PARTIES"

11.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 11 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff joined the Firm as an equity partner in the Labor &
Employment Department in February 2013, and is resident in the Firm's Washington, D.C.
office.
12.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in the first two sentences of Paragraph

12 of the First Amended Complaint, excepts admits and avers that it is an international law
6

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 7 of 38

firm of approximately 740 lawyers in 13 offices around the world (including an office in
Washington D.C.), with its principal office located in New York. The last sentence in
Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
AS TO "JURISDICTION AND VENUE"
13.

Proskauer denies that any events or omissions took place that would give rise to

or otherwise support jurisdiction in the Court, but admits that Plaintiff invokes the Court's
jurisdiction under the statutes listed in Paragraph 13 of the First Amended Complaint.
14.

Proskauer denies that any events or omissions took place that would support

venue in this district, but admits that Plaintiff invokes venue in this district under the statutes
listed in Paragraph 14 of the First Amended Complaint.
AS TO "FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS"
AS TO "PLAINTIFF'S OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE RECORD"
15.

Proskauer admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 15 of the First Amended

Complaint.
16.

Proskauer admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 16 of the First Amended

Complaint.
17.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 17 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that the Paragraph contains quoted excerpts from a media statement
issued by the Firm announcing that it had admitted Plaintiff to its partnership, and refers the
Court to the media statement for its full contents.
18.

Proskauer admits the allegations set forth in Paragraph 18 of the First Amended

Complaint.
7

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 8 of 38

19.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 19 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that from FY 2014 to 2016, Plaintiff ranked 6th in client billable
hours and avers that she ranked 19th in client origination revenue among equity partners, and
34th in allocated profits for 2016 and 38th in allocated profits for 2017. Proskauer further
avers that other metrics that Plaintiff ignores demonstrate that her contributions to the profits of
the Firm have been substantially less than that of many other partners. She omits that over the
same three-year period, she ranked 32nd in revenue generation credit and 142nd in realization;
and that her collected rate was substantially lower than many of her partners; in 2016, Plaintiff
ranked 40th in revenue generation credit and 171st in realization; again her collected rate was
among the lowest of all equity partners, which indicates lower profitability associated with the
revenue for which she claims credit. Despite those rankings, by FY 2015, Plaintiff was one of
the six (6) highest paid partners in the Labor & Employment Department (three male and three
female) and by FY 2016 she was the fifth highest paid in that group (ahead of all but two male
partners). Proskauer also avers that in FY 2017 while Plaintifr s collections dropped nearly
50% from the prior year, her profit allocation decreased by only 2%, and that for 2018 Plaintiff
currently is annualizing collections of approximately $3 million. Proskauer further admits that
Plaintiff served on the design and art selection committees for the Washington, D.C. office.
20.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 20 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff has been identified in the publications referenced in that
Paragraph (except that Plaintiff was not named as a Washington, D.C. Super Lawyer in 2008,
as she alleges) and has spoken at conventions and seminars. Proskauer refers the Court to the
referenced publications for their full contents.
8

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 9 of 38

21.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 21 of the First Amended

Complaint.
AS TO "PROSKAUER 'SANTI-DISCRIMINATION
AND ANTI-RETALIATION OBLIGATIONS"

22.

The allegations set forth in Paragraph 22 of the First Amended Complaint state a

legal conclusion to which no response is required.
23.

The allegations set forth in Paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint state a

legal conclusion to which no response is required.
24.

Proskauer admits that the Firm's Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-

Harassment Policy contains the excerpt quoted in Paragraph 24 of the First Amended
Complaint, and refers the Court to the Policy for its full contents.
25.

Proskauer admits that the Firm's Equal Employment Opportunity and Anti-

Harassment Policy contains the excerpt quoted in Paragraph 25 of the First Amended
Complaint, and refers the Court to the Policy for its full contents.
26.

The allegations set forth in Paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint state a

legal conclusion to which no response is required.
27.

The allegations set forth in Paragraph 27 of the First Amended Complaint state a

legal conclusion to which no response is required.
28.

The allegations set forth in Paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint state a

legal conclusion to which no response is required.
29.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 29 of the First Amended

Complaint, and avers that support was given to Plaintiff during her times of family crises,

9

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 10 of 38

including full support in a trial she could not handle, and sizable cash advances and free legal
services in connection with another personal challenge.
30.

Proskauer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

allegations set forth in Paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint, and avers that it
allocated profits to Plaintiff fairly in relation to all equity partners (male or female) and has not
discriminated or retaliated against Plaintiff in any manner.
31.

The allegations set forth in Paragraph 31 of the First Amended Complaint state a

legal conclusion to which no response is required.
AS TO "PROSKAUER 'S UNLAWFUL ACTS AND OMISSIONS"

32.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that a memorandum dated January 15, 2013 sets forth the terms
pursuant to which Plaintiff joined the Firm as an equity partner and her 2013 total allocation,
which included a base allocation o f $ - if Plaintiff produced annualized accrued
revenue of $7 million or more and a signing bonus o f $ _ , prorated for the portion of the
year that Plaintiff was a partner at the Firm. Proskauer refers the Court to the January 15, 2013
memorandum for its full contents.
33.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that in FY 2014, Plaintiff's client origination revenue was
approximately $7.4 million, she recorded more than 2,600 client billable hours, and her profit
allocation rose $ - from the prior year to $ _ _ Proskauer avers that Plaintiff
omits that her realization ranked 138th and her collected rate ranked 164th among equity
partners in FY 2014, which reflects lower profitability associated with the revenue for which
10

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 11 of 38

she claims credit. Based on the host of quantitative and qualitative factors that the Firm's
allocation system takes into account, which seeks to reward each partner's total contributions
to the Firm, Plaintiff received allocations that were fair relative to her contributions.
34.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 34 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff spoke with an Executive Committee member about her
allocation of profits.
3 5.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in the First Amended Complaint, except

admits that in FY 2015, Plaintiffs client revenue was approximately $9.2 million and she
recorded approximately 2,581 billable hours. Proskauer avers that Plaintiff omits that her
realization ranked 148th and her collected rate ranked 174th among equity partners in FY
2015, which reflects lower profitability associated with the revenue for which she claims
credit.
36.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 36 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff met with Department co-Chairs Rasin and Baumgarten
in or about late 2015 to discuss profit allocations for FY 2015.
37.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 37 of the First Amended

Complaint.
38.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 38 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that she discussed a conversation she had with Mr. Rasin with the
head of the Washington, D.C. office.
39.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 39 of the First Amended

Complaint, and avers that in early 2016, on the eve of a trial for a client that accounted for two11

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 12 of 38

thirds of her origination revenues (in the period between 2014 and 2016), Plaintiff informed the
Firm that she had suffered a family emergency and had been unable to obtain a postponement
from the court, and requested that the Firm find substitute lead counsel on a case for which she
had been the only partner for many years. The case was the "bellwether" case for 16 other
related pending cases. Immediately upon Plaintiff's request, the Firm worked to cover the trial.
On ten days' notice, two Los Angeles based partners with whom Plaintiff was scarcely
acquainted dropped everything in their professional and personal lives and relocated to
Virginia to handle a case with which they had no prior involvement. Proskauer also offered
Plaintiff substantial personal support, contrary to her baseless allegation that the Department
co-Chairs "berated" her.
40.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 40 of the First Amended

Complaint, and avers that in April 2016, Plaintiff's partners secured a jury verdict awarding
only a very small percentage of the damages sought by the plaintiff. That exceptional result
and the continuing dedication of Plaintiff's partners contributed to a settlement process that has
now resulted in all 17 cases being successfully resolved. Plaintiff has now mischaracterized
her partners and her Firm as being unsupportive-indeed unsympathetic and hostile-during
her family emergency. But, in an April 15, 2016 email to Chairman Leccese, her Department
co-Chairs, and the trial team following the jury verdict, Plaintiff wrote:
Yes, a wonderful result under exquisitely challenging circumstances.
My response has been delayed because (in addition to talking with a very happy
client much of the evening and then finally sleeping) I have been trying to
compose a response that expresses my deep appreciation for what the firm, Lary
and Mike and the entire team have done for me and my family. How do you thank
two partners who gave up four weeks of their lives because their partner has a
challenging personal situation? How do you thank the firm leadership for jumping
12

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 13 of 38

into the situation and handling it with such grace? How do you thank colleagues
who worked tirelessly on the trial even though they also faced difficult personal
situations?
All I can say is thank you, thank you, and thank you again. I think that - after 17
years with the title - I truly understand and appreciate the term "partner."
41.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 41 of the First Amended

Complaint.
42.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 42 of the First Amended

Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations concerning Plaintiffs alleged psychological and physical symptoms of
emotional distress, and avers that to the extent Plaintiff had such symptoms, they were not
caused by any act or omission of the Firm.
43.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 43 of the First Amended

Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of
the allegations concerning Plaintiffs alleged medical conditions and doctor visits, and avers
that to the extent Plaintiff was "diagnosed with multiple medical conditions," they were not
caused by any act or omission of the Firm.
44.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 44 of the First Amended

Complaint.
45.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 45 of the First Amended

Complaint.
46.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 46 of the First Amended

Complaint.

13

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 14 of 38

4 7.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 4 7 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that in or about September 2016, Plaintiff met with Mr. Leccese.
48.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 48 of the First Amended

Complaint, and avers that at the dinner to which Plaintiff refers, Mr. Leccese was the only
attendee with an assigned seat.
49.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 49 of the First Amended

Complaint.
50.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 50 of the First Amended

Complaint.
51.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 51 of the First Amended

Complaint.
52.

Proskauer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 52 of the First Amended Complaint, and avers
that to the extent Plaintiff experienced any alleged medical conditions and/or took any
medication, it was not attributable to any act or omission of the Firm.
53.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 53 of the First Amended

Complaint.
54.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 54 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff sent an email to Mr. Leccese, copying the Firm's
General Counsel Steven Obus, on November 8, 2016 in which she claimed (falsely and for the
first time) that her profit allocations in FY 2014 and 2015 were influenced by gender, and
refers the Court to the email for its full contents.
14

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 15 of 38

55.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 55 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff sent an email that contains the excerpt quoted in that
Paragraph to Mr. Leccese on November 8, 2016, and refers the Court to the email exchange,
including Mr. Leccese's response to Plaintiff, for its full contents. Among other things, in that
email exchange Plaintiff volunteers that Mr. Leccese was "very caring and supportive during a
period when I was facing serious personal challenges."
56.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 56 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that the purported issues Plaintiff raised in her November 8, 2016
email were referred to Betsy Plevan, a partner in the Labor & Employment Department, to
investigate, and that Ms. Plevan interviewed Plaintiff on November 16, 2016 as part of the
Firm's investigation. Proskauer further avers that Plaintiff did not raise any "harassment"
allegations with the Firm during the course of this investigation, but rather was focused on her
claim of pay inequity.
57.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 57 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that in FY 2016, Plaintiff originated approximately $8.4 million in
client revenue and recorded 2,279 client billable hours. Proskauer avers that Plaintiff omits
that she ranked 40th in revenue generation, 171 st in realization, and 182nd in collected rate
among all equity partners that year, reflecting the lower profitability associated with the
revenue for which she claims credit. Despite those rankings, Plaintiffs allocation of profits
increased $ - in FY 2016 to $ _ , making her the fifth highest paid partner in the
Labor & Employment Department.

15

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 16 of 38

58.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 58 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiffs counsel sent the Firm a letter dated February 14,
2017, and refers the Court to that letter for its full contents.
59.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 59 of the First Amended

Complaint.
AS TO "PROSKAUER CONTINUES ITS CAMPAIGN OF RETALIATION
AND HARASSMENT AFTER PLAINTIFF FILES SUIT"

60.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 60 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in May 2017 and filed a Charge
of Discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in July 2017.
61.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 61 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that access to certain Firm and departmental files has been limited by
Proskauer.
.62.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 62 of the First Amended

Complaint.
63.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 63 of the First Amended

Complaint, and avers that in a May 31, 2017 letter to Plaintiffs counsel, the Firm stated, in
part: "The Firm is entitled to protect itself from Ms. Bertram's adverse actions and disregard
for her obligation to preserve confidential information. Ms. Bertram has full access to the
resources she needs to service the client matters for which she is responsible." Proskauer
refers the Court to its May 31, 2017 letter for its full contents. The Firm further avers that it
advised Plaintiff repeatedly that any alleged difficulty searching Filesite was a technological
16

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 17 of 38

issue that had nothing to do with any access restrictions to Filesite, and urged her to work with
the Firm's Information Services Department to update her software and troubleshoot the issues,
which Plaintiff delayed in doing.
64.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 64 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff corresponded by email with the Labor & Employment
Department co-Chairs regarding Filesite access between June 8 and June 28, 2017, and that the
parties reached an agreement concerning Plaintiffs Filesite access vis-a-vis the Firm's
entitlement to protect its confidential information. Proskauer refers the Court to the email
correspondence for its full contents.
65.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 65 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that the second sentence of the paragraph contains a quoted excerpt
from a May 31, 2017 letter to Plaintiff's counsel, and refers the Court to the letter for its full
contents.
66.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 66 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that the Firm held a partners' meeting on June 28, 2017.
73.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 73 of the First Amended

Complaint, 1 except admits that Plaintiff went to Mr. Hamburger's office after the June 28,
2017 partners' meeting to discuss the meeting. Proskauer further admits that Plaintiff sent Mr.
Hamburger an email in anticipation of another partner meeting on October 18, 2017, and avers
that Mr. Hamburger responded to Plaintiff's email on October 20, 2017. Proskauer refers the

1 The

First Amended Complaint omits paragraphs 67 through 72. Proskauer did not re-number its response.

17

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 18 of 38

Court to the October 18, 2017 and October 20, 2017 email correspondence for their full
contents.
74.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 74 of the First Amended

Complaint.
75.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 75 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff's self-evaluation report to the Executive Committee,
dated November 1, 2017, contains the excerpt quoted in that Paragraph, and refers the Court to
the report for its full contents.
76.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 76 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that she met with two members of the Executive Committee and the
co-Chairs of the Labor & Employment Department to discuss her self-evaluation report on or
about November 1, 2017.
77.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 77 of the First Amended

Complaint (other than the first sentence), and avers that while Plaintiff's client revenue
declined 50% in FY 2017, her profits allocation declined only 2%.
78.

Proskauer denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 78 of the First Amended Complaint, except
admits that Plaintiff sought information from the Firm's Travel Team in January 2018 about
the 2018 Partner Retreat.
79.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 79 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Mr. Leccese sent Plaintiff an email on January 19, 2018 that
stated, in part: "Since filing your lawsuit you have repeatedly mischaracterized benign
18

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 19 of 38

interactions with your partners at lunches and in hallway encounters as occasions fraught with
slights. Your ulterior motive to use partner events and casual interactions to make a false
record to advance your claims is transparent. We choose not to subject ourselves to such a
willful mischaracterization of events. Consequently, you are not invited to this year's
gathering. We will, however, record the business presentations and make them available for
viewing by you." Proskauer denies knowledge and information concerning what Plaintiff may
have told her children about the Partner Retreat.
80.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 80 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that the Labor & Employment Department holds an annual meeting
each year at the Partner Retreat.
81.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 81 of the First Amended

Complaint.
82.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 82 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that on May 12, 2017 (not May 15, 2017), the Firm issued a media
statement entitled "Proskauer Statement on Meritless Complaint" that stated, in part:
"Throughout her relatively brief tenure with the Firm, the plaintiff has been among the highest
paid partners in her department, ranking in the top 5 (of 49) in 2016. In each year at Proskauer
her annual allocation of profits has increased substantially. In addition to being near the top of
the pay scale for her area, she also received enormous financial and non-financial support from
the firm to help her deal with a variety of personal and professional crises for which she sought
our assistance." Proskauer refers the Court to its May 12, 2017 media statement for its full
contents.
19

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 20 of 38

83.

Proskauer denies the allegations sets forth in Paragraph 83 of the First Amended

Complaint, except adrriits that the Firm's May 12, 2017 (not May 15, 2017) media statement
entitled "Proskauer Statement on Meritless Complaint" stated, in part: "The plaintiff offered
little complaint about her compensation until just a few months ago, when her business began
to decline dramatically and she apparently became fearful that her compensation might be
reduced." Proskauer refers the Court to its May 12, 2017 media statement for its full contents.
84.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 84 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that the Firm's May 12, 2017 (not May 15, 2017) media statement
entitled "Proskauer Statement on Meritless Complaint" stated, in part: "Instead of seeking to
rebuild her practice, she sought to squeeze a massive payout from our firm in exchanges for her
rapid departure and an agreement not to weaponized her blatantly inaccurate charges. This
action resulted only when we refused to capitulate to such questionable tactics." Proskauer
refers the Court to its May 12, 201 7 media statement for its full contents.
85.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 85 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that Plaintiff's FY 2016 client revenue exceeded the average of her
client revenue for FY 2014 through 2016. Proskauer avers that notwithstanding the selective
metrics included in Paragraph 85, Plaintiffs omits that she ranked 40th in revenue generation
credit, 171st in realization, and 182nd in collected rate among all equity partners in FY 2016,
which reflects the lower profitability associated with the revenue for which she claims credit.
Proskauer further avers that by the end of 2016 when Plaintiff complained to Mr. Leccese, it
was evident that a series of related cases that had accounted for approximately two-thirds of

20

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 21 of 38

Plaintiffs practice were winding down, resulting in Plaintiffs originated revenues in FY 2018
being projected to be only one-third of what they had been in FY 2015.
86.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 86 of the First Amended

Complaint.
87.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 87 of the First Amended

Complaint, except admits that the Firm issued a May 19, 2017 media statement entitled
"Proskauer Statement to Correct the Record on Plaintiffs Compensation in Jane Doe v.
Proskauer Suit" which stated, in part, that Plaintiff "fail[ed] to accurately represent her
contributions" in her lawsuit because she omitted from her complaint that for 2014-2016, "she
ranked 32nd in revenue generation and 142nd in realization among all partners, which reflects
the lower profitability of the revenue for which she claims credit. In 2016, she ranked 40th in
revenue generation and 171 st in realization. Despite those rankings, she fails to admit that she
was still in the top 10% of her department (5th out of 49 partners) in pay." Proskauer refers the
Court to its May 19, 201 7 media statement for its full contents.

COUNTI
88.

Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to

Paragraph 88 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
89.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 89 of the First Amended

Complaint.
90.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 90 of the First Amended

Complaint.

21

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 22 of 38

91.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 91 of the First Amended

Complaint.
92.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 92 of the First Amended

Complaint.
93.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 93 of the First Amended

Complaint.
94.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 94 of the First Amended

Complaint.
COUNT II

95.

Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to

Paragraph 95 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
96.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 96 of the First Amended

Complaint.
97.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 97 of the First Amended

Complaint.
98.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 98 of the First Amended

Complaint.
99.

Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 99 of the First Amended

Complaint.
100. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 100 of the First Amended
Complaint.

22

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 23 of 38

101. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 101 of the First Amended
Complaint.
102. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 102 of the First Amended
Complaint.

COUNT III
103. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 103 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
104. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 104 of the First Amended
Complaint.
105. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 105 of the First Amended
Complaint.
106. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 106 of the First Amended
Complaint.
107. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 107 of the First Amended
Complaint.
108. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 108 of the First Amended
Complaint.
109. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 109 of the First Amended
Complaint.
110. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 110 of the First Amended
Complaint.

23

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 24 of 38

COUNT IV
111. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 111 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
112. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 112 of the First Amended
Complaint.
113. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 113 of the First Amended
Complaint.
114. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 114 of the First Amended
Complaint.
115. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 115 of the First Amended
Complaint.

COUNTY
116. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 116 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
117. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 117 of the First Amended
Complaint.
118. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 118 of the First Amended
Complaint.
119. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 119 of the First Amended
Complaint.
120. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 120 of the First Amended
Complaint.
24

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 25 of 38

121. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 121 of the First Amended
Complaint.
COUNT VI

122. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 122 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
123. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 123 of the First Amended
Complaint.
124. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 124 of the First Amended
Complaint.
125. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 125 of the First Amended
Complaint.
126. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 126 of the First Amended
Complaint.
127. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 127 of the First Amended
Complaint.
COUNT VII

128. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 128 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
129. The allegations in Paragraph 129 of the First Amended Complaint state a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
130. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 130 of the First Amended
Complaint.
25

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 26 of 38

131. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 131 of the First Amended
Complaint.
132. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 132 of the First Amended
Complaint.
133. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 133 of the First Amended
Complaint.
134. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 134 of the First Amended
Complaint.
135. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 135 of the First Amended
Complaint.
136. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 136 of the First Amended
Complaint.
137. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 137 of the First Amended
Complaint.
138. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 138 of the First Amended
Complaint.
139. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 139 of the First Amended
Complaint.
140. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 140 of the First Amended
Complaint
141. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 141 of the First Amended
Complaint.
26

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 27 of 38

COUNT VIII
142. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 142 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
143. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 143 of the First Amended
Complaint.
144. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 144 of the First Amended
Complaint.
145. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 145 of the First Amended
Complaint.
146. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 146 of the First Amended
Complaint.
147. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 147 of the First Amended
Complaint.
148. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 148 of the First Amended
Complaint.
149. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 149 of the First Amended
Complaint.
COUNTIX
150. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 150 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
151. The allegations in Paragraph 151 of the First Amended Complaint state a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
27

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 28 of 38

152. The allegations in Paragraph 152 of the First Amended Complaint state a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
153. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 153 of the First Amended
Complaint.
154. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 154 of the First Amended
Complaint.

COUNTX
155. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 155 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
156. The allegations in Paragraph 156 of the First Amended Complaint state a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
157. The allegations in Paragraph 157 of the First Amended Complaint state a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.
158. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in the first sentence of Paragraph 158 of
the First Amended Complaint, except admits that the Firm's Partnership Agreement states, in
part, that "[t]he profits of the Firm each year shall be allocated among the partners by the
Executive Committee," and refers the Court to the Partnership Agreement for its full contents.
The allegations set forth in the second sentence of Paragraph 15 8 state a legal conclusion to
which no response is required.
159. The allegations in Paragraph 159 of the First Amended Complaint state a legal
conclusion to which no response is required.

28

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 29 of 38

160. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 160 of the First Amended
Complaint.
161. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 161 of the First Amended
Complaint.
COUNT XI
162. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 162 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
163. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 163 of the First Amended
Complaint.
164. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 164 of the First Amended
Complaint.
165. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 165 of the First Amended
Complaint.
166. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 166 of the First Amended
Complaint.
167. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 167 of the First Amended
Complaint.
COUNT XII
168. Proskauer repeats and restates each of the above responses in response to
Paragraph 168 of the First Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
169. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 169 of the First Amended
Complaint, except admits that it issued a media statement on May 12, 2017 (not May 15, 2017)
29

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 30 of 38

entitled "Proskauer Statement on Meritless Complaint," and a media statement on May 19,
2017 entitled "Proskauer Statement to Correct the Record on Plaintiffs Compensation in Jane
Doe vs. Proskauer Suit," and refers the Court to those statements for their full contents.
170. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 170 of the First Amended
Complaint, except it denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether
its media statements were "widely viewed in the BigLaw and legal community."
171. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 171 of the First Amended
Complaint, except admits that articles that appeared on Law.com, Above the Law, and Law360
on May 12 and May 15, 2017 suggesting that there were two female partners in the Firm's
Washington D.C. office and that biographical details the Plaintiff provided in her Complaint
were consistent with Plaintiffs biography, and refers the Court to the articles for their full
contents.
172. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 172 of the First Amended
Complaint.
173. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 173 of the First Amended
Complaint.
174. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 174 of the First Amended
Complaint, and avers that by the end of 2016 Plaintiffs client originations revenue began what
has become a precipitous decline to $8.4 million in FY 2016 (a decline of approximately 8.7%
from the Peak Year), $4.15 million in FY 2017 (a decline of approximately 55% from the Peak
Year), and based on her credited collections through the first six months of the current fiscal
year, an amount of approximately $3 million in FY 2018, a 67% plummet in originations from
30

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 31 of 38

her Peak Year. This precipitous drop occurred because the cases that comprised most of
Plaintiffs client originations in the Peak Year were well on their way to being resolved (and
indeed have now been resolved).
175. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 175 of the First Amended
Complaint, except admit that it issued a May 12, 2017 (not May 15, 2017) media statement
entitled "Proskauer Statement on Meritless Lawsuit" that stated, in relevant part: "Rather than
seek to rebuild her practice, [Plaintiff] sought to squeeze a massive payout from our firm in
exchange for her rapid departure and an agreement not to weaponized her blatantly inaccurate
charges," and refers the Court to the referenced media statement for the full contents.
176. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 176 of the First Amended
Complaint.
177. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 177 of the First Amended
Complaint.
178. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 178 of the First Amended Complaint state a
legal conclusion to which no response is required.
179. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 179 of the First Amended
Complaint, except denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to Plaintiffs
efforts to find "employment."
180. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 180 of the First Amended
Complaint.
181. Proskauer denies the allegations set forth in Paragraph 181 of the First Amended
Complaint.
31

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 32 of 38

AS TO THE "PRAYER FOR RELIEF"
Proskauer denies that Plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief set forth in the
"WHEREFORE" paragraph of the Complaint, and each subparagraph A through E thereof, and
denies that the Firm violated any law. Proskauer denies each and every allegation in the
Complaint not specifically admitted herein.
AFFIRMATIVE AND OTHER DEFENSES

In furtherance of its Answer to the First Amended Complaint, and pursuant to Rule 8 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Proskauer states as follows for its affirmative and other
defenses, without admitting thereby that the Firm necessarily bears the burden of proof on any
such defense:
AS AND FOR A FIRST DEFENSE
The First Amended Complaint fails, in whole or in part, to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted or a claim for which the damages sought may be awarded.
AS AND FOR A SECOND DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statutes of limitation
and/or filing periods.
AS AND FOR A THIRD DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, as for any matters for which Plaintiff has
failed to satisfy administrative, procedural and jurisdictional prerequisites for commencing and
maintaining this action.

32

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 33 of 38

AS AND FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE
All actions by Proskauer with respect to Plaintiff were lawful and were made in good
faith compliance with applicable provisions of law, rules and regulations, and all actions by
Proskauer with respect to Plaintiff were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory, non-retaliatory,
non-prohibited reasons and/or for good cause.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE
Even assuming that Proskauer ever engaged in any conduct with respect to Plaintiff that
was motivated in part by unlawful reasons (which Proskauer expressly denies), Proskauer would
have taken the same actions with respect to Plaintiff for lawful, non-discriminatory, nonretaliatory reasons.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs Complaint is barred in whole or in part because Plaintiff was not treated
differently than similarly-situated individuals.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE
Even assuming that there ever was any unlawful discriminatory behavior with respect to
Plaintiff (which Proskauer expressly denies), Proskauer at all times exercised reasonable care to
prevent and promptly correct such, and Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of the
preventive and/or corrective opportunities provided by Proskauer or to avoid harm otherwise.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE
Proskauer at all relevant times has maintained, disseminated and observed equal
employment, affirmative action, a harassment-free work environment, and anti-retaliation
policies, that inter alia, provide that all personnel decisions are to be made on the basis of merit
33

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 34 of 38

without regard to gender or on any other basis that is protected under applicable law, prohibit
any form of harassment or intimidation on any basis that is protected by applicable law, and
prohibit any form of retaliation against an individual who reports a claim of discrimination or
who opposes any act or practice made unlawful by any federal, state, or local statute, or who
cooperates in the investigation of such a report.
AS AND FOR A NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because any statements made by
Proskauer were true.
AS AND FOR A TENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the judicial proceedings privilege.
AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the common interest privilege.
AS AND FOR A TWELFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the relationship between
Plaintiff and Proskauer is governed by an express agreement.
AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the parol evidence rule.
AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff's claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the Statute of Frauds.
AS AND FOR A FIFTEENTH DEFENSE
The contract or contracts at issue could not be changed orally.

34

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 35 of 38

AS AND FOR A SIXTEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has been paid all monies owed to her by Proskauer.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTEENTH DEFENSE
Any failure by Proskauer to perform any obligation owed to Plaintiff (which Proskauer
denies) resulted from Plaintiffs failure to first perform her obligations, which performance was a
condition precedent to the performance of Proskauer's obligations.
AS AND FOR AN EIGHTEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Plaintiff was unjustified in
relying on representations of future intent or opinions.
AS AND FOR A NINETEENTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, because her alleged reliance upon the
purported oral promises or representations made by Proskauer was not reasonable.
AS AND FOR A TWENTIETH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs cause of action alleging fraud includes only conclusory allegations and fails to
set forth any factual support for the assertions of fraud.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIRST DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by virtue of the fact that any wage
differential was based on a factor or factors other than gender.
AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SECOND DEFENSE
To the extent Plaintiff was denied equal pay for equal work on jobs the performance of
which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar
working conditions, which Proskauer denies occurred, such alleged unequal pay was lawful and
35

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 36 of 38

not a violation of the Equal Pay Act because it was pursuant to (i) a seniority system, (ii) a merit
system, (iii) a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or (iv) a
differential based on any other factor other than sex.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-THIRD DEFENSE
To the extent Plaintiff was denied equal pay for equal work for work the performance of
which was in the same establishment and of a comparable character or work on the same
operation, in the same business, or of the same type, which Proskauer denies occurred, such
alleged unequal pay was lawful and not a violation of the Maryland Equal Pay for Equal Work
Law because it was based on (i) a seniority system, (ii) a merit increase system, (iii) jobs that
require different abilities or skills, or (iv) jobs that require the regular performance of different
duties or services.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FOURTH DEFENSE
Plaintiffs claims are barred, in whole or in part, by equitable defenses, including the
doctrines of equitable estoppel, laches, waiver and/or unclean hands.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-FIFTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff has not been damaged by any of Proskauer' s actions.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SIXTH DEFENSE
If damaged, which Proskauer expressly denies, Plaintiff has failed to make reasonable
and diligent efforts to mitigate damages.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-SEVENTH DEFNESE
The First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which an award of punitive
damages can be granted.
36

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 37 of 38

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-EIGHTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages because, at all relevant times,
Proskauer engaged in good faith efforts to comply with all of its obligations.

AS AND FOR A TWENTY-NINTH DEFENSE
Plaintiff is not entitled to recover any exemplary or punitive damages because Proskauer
did not commit, ratify, authorize, or acquiesce in any malicious, willful, or reckless act.

AS AND FOR A THIRTIETH DEFENSE
Plaintiff is not entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs under the causes of action as
demanded in the First Amended Complaint.

AS AND FORA THIRTY-FIRST DEFENSE
The Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over all or part of the claims asserted
in the First Amended Complaint.

Proskauer reserves the right, pending completion of discovery, to assert any additional
defenses that may exist. Proskauer does not consent to the trial by jury of any issue not required
by law to be tried to a jury, including but not limited to the determination of equitable remedies.
WHEREFORE, Proskauer respectfully requests that the First Amended Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice in its entirety and that judgement be issued in the Firm's favor, and that
Proskauer be awarded its fees, costs, expenses, and such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.

37

 Case 1:17-cv-00901-ABJ Document 48 Filed 05/23/18 Page 38 of 38

Dated: May 23, 2018
New York, New York

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

By:

Isl Kathleen M McKenna
Kathleen M. McKenna* (KM-4258)
Steven E. Obus* (SO-9791)
Evandro C. Gigante* (EG-7402)
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tel: 212.969.3000
Fax: 212.969.2900
kmckenna@proskauer.com
sobus@proskauer.com
egigante@proskauer.com

Colin Kass (DC Bar No. 460630)
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 600 South
Washington, D.C. 20004
Telephone: (202) 416-6890
Facsimile: (202) 416-6899
ckass@proskauer.com
*admitted pro hac vice
Attorneys for Defendant Proskauer Rose LLP

38