A federal courtroom in Manhattan is set to host an uncommon spectacle: a jury weighing employment discrimination claims against one of the world’s largest law firms. The dispute centers on allegations that a senior associate was dismissed shortly after seeking maternity leave, thrusting workplace culture inside elite legal circles into public view.
The lawsuit was brought by Anisha Mehta, who says she was terminated in 2022 while serving as a senior associate in the firm’s intellectual property practice. According to her complaint, the decision came when she was six months pregnant and less than a week after she requested leave. She claims the dismissal reflected financial pressures at the firm, including reduced workloads and client scrutiny over billing rates, and seeks damages.
The firm disputes those allegations, maintaining that the termination was rooted in performance concerns. It argues that Mehta, then in her seventh year, was not meeting expectations. The case, however, survived pretrial challenges, with the presiding judge allowing claims under city, state and federal anti-discrimination laws—as well as alleged violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act—to proceed.
In permitting the case to move forward, the court pointed to evidence that appeared inconsistent with the firm’s performance-based explanation, including raises, bonuses and her involvement with a significant client. Those contradictions, the judge noted, created factual disputes suitable for a jury.
Trials of this kind are rare in the legal industry, where disputes often end quietly through settlement. Litigation exposes internal evaluation systems, compensation structures and termination decisions—details many firms prefer to keep out of public record. That risk, employment law observers say, frequently pushes both sides toward resolution before trial.
Mehta has since moved on to an in-house role in the technology sector. Meanwhile, the case unfolds against a backdrop of broader scrutiny over workplace equity within major law firms, several of which have faced discrimination claims in recent years—many concluding with settlements rather than verdicts.
Elsewhere in the legal world, disputes over money and fees are also taking center stage.
A conservative attorney involved in defending a Texas county’s removal of books from public libraries is attempting to reopen a long-standing rule on legal fee recovery. After successfully defending the county, he requested more than $1.3 million in fees but simultaneously asked a judge to deny the request, setting up an appeal aimed at challenging a decades-old Supreme Court precedent. That ruling limits fee awards to defendants in civil rights cases unless a plaintiff’s claims are deemed frivolous. The attorney argues the standard should be overturned and has vowed to continue pressing the issue.
In another high-profile matter, a veteran litigator disclosed billing rates exceeding $2,700 per hour while seeking a nine-figure fee award tied to a privacy lawsuit that resulted in a $425 million jury verdict against a major technology company. Other lawyers in the case reported even higher hourly figures, underscoring the extraordinary sums tied to large-scale litigation.
Meanwhile, several U.S. states are pursuing reimbursement after successfully blocking a proposed grocery industry merger. Officials are seeking more than $10 million in legal costs, though a judge has yet to determine the final amount.
Together, these disputes highlight a legal landscape where employment practices, ideological battles and towering legal fees are colliding—often in public courtrooms rather than behind closed doors.
