66.  Ms. Tolton graduated from Harvard Law School, where she was selected as the  Commencement 2010 Class Day Student Speaker. At Harvard, Ms. Tolton served on the Graduate  Council, the 2010 Class Committee, the Harvard Law School Student Government, and the  Executive Board of the Harvard Law California Club. She joined Jones Day’s Irvine office directly  from Harvard in 2010.    67.  Ms. Tolton initially excelled at Jones Day. For most of her tenure at the Firm, Ms.  Tolton worked almost exclusively with Partner Paul Rafferty, who was considered very difficult  to work with, particularly for women. Ms. Tolton’s superb performance, however, made her  indispensable, and she was awarded deposition and court appearance opportunities early in her  career. She also played a critical role in a five-month trial, achieving a full defense verdict to avoid  millions of dollars in liability for the client. In recognition of Ms. Tolton’s significant role, during  a post-trial hearing on fees and costs, Partner Rafferty argued that Jones Day’s fees were justified  in part because Ms. Tolton was a superstar attorney from Harvard Law.   68.  The year before she went on maternity leave for the first time, Ms. Tolton played  the primary role in obtaining the vacatur of an interim arbitration award for fraud, along with an  award of sanctions for the Firm’s client.    70.  Ms. Tolton was also a role model and mentor to many of the Irvine office’s junior  associates, and particularly women. The Firm recognized Ms. Tolton’s value in this regard and  entrusted her with heading the Irvine office’s summer program in 2012—when it was unheard of  for a junior (second year) associate to do so. The Firm’s confidence in Ms. Tolton was rewarded:  Firm management repeatedly praised her program as the best in office history.    71.  Soon, the Firm was sending Ms. Tolton to recruiting events and on campus  interviews (“OCI”), which she conducted alongside the then-Firmwide Recruiting Partner, Kevyn  Orr. In recognition of Ms. Tolton’s stellar performance, the hiring partner of the Los Angeles office  at the time, Erik Swanholt, told Ms. Tolton that he would try to have her sent to Harvard for OCI  to supplement or replace the partners who were slated to attend.   72.  Partner Cary Sullivan often asked Ms. Tolton to provide formal training sessions  for new associates in her office, including one on best practices for successful associates. Ms.  Tolton also accompanied a class of summer associates from her office to the nationwide orientation  and training program at Jones Day’s Washington, DC office, a role usually filled by the office’s  hiring partner.   ii.  Despite Her Exemplary Performance, Ms. Tolton’s Gender Was An  Obstacle to Her Success at Jones Day   73.  Ms. Tolton’s superb performance did not, however, insulate her from sexist and  sexualized conduct and commentary. For example, then-Partner Eric Landau, who was trying to  recruit Ms. Tolton to his practice group, regularly commented on her clothes and high heels. After  a deposition preparation session, he remarked that partners at his former firm kept asking him why  his female associates all looked like volleyball players. Shortly after Ms. Tolton got married,  however, Partner Landau seemed to abruptly lose interest in working with her.   75.  Male associates in Irvine and elsewhere took their cues from the misconduct of  male partners. During a limo ride to a summer associate event, male attorneys from the office  initiated a game of “Fuck, Marry, Kill” in which they named coworkers from the office and  proposed to whom they would do each of these things. Ms. Tolton avoided this event the following  year, but learned from attendees that a male associate who attended had called several of his female  colleagues “cunts.” That male associate remains at the Firm today.   76.  This casual misogyny inevitably bled into the Firm’s view of Ms. Tolton as an  attorney. Ms. Tolton often found herself assigned secretarial-type work and denied professional  opportunities extended to her male peers. In one case, Partner Rafferty designated her as his  chauffeur for a hearing on a contested arbitration award. Even though Ms. Tolton drafted the lion’s  share of the briefing, Partner Rafferty conducted the argument himself. He tasked her only with  maneuvering demonstrative exhibits on an easel for the court to view. This assignment was  particularly obtuse because Ms. Tolton was significantly pregnant at the time, making it difficult  for her to move the exhibits—so much so that the opposing counsel ultimately assisted Ms. Tolton.    77.  As if to emphasize Ms. Tolton’s role as human easel, when the male Chief  Executive Officer and male General Counsel of the client departed with Ms. Tolton and Partner  Rafferty to have lunch at a restaurant, Partner Rafferty turned Ms. Tolton away at the door, denying  her the client interaction.   79.  Despite her proven track record and superior performance, Ms. Tolton’s star began  to fade when she asked questions about Firm policies concerning parenting—ironically, at a firm- sponsored event addressing the advancement of female attorneys. In 2014, the Partner-in-Charge  of the San Diego office, Karen Hewitt, visited the Irvine office with a then recently elevated Los  Angeles Partner, Erica Reilley. Their visit was intended to model female success at the Firm and  to address the Firm’s reputation for being inhospitable to female attorneys who were also mothers.  During the presentation, Partners Hewitt and Reilley highlighted the fact that Partner Reilley had  been promoted to partner while on a reduced-time, “flex” schedule.   80.  When the event opened for questions, Ms. Tolton asked about the Firm protocols  for requesting a reduced-time schedule and notifying the Firm about one’s pregnancy. The  presenters, however, did not respond and instead deflected the question by navigating their  presentation to the Firm’s mission statement and reciting platitudes about Firm values.   82.  Ms. Tolton became pregnant in 2015 and took maternity leave in January 2016.  Near the end of that leave, in June 2016, the Firm informed her that her salary had been frozen.  This was known at Jones Day as a punitive measure, as where a male associate had his salary  frozen after he got drunk at a summer associate event and called several female associates “cunts.”   83.  Ms. Tolton’s performance over the prior year, as noted above, had been stellar.  Accordingly, Ms. Tolton could only conclude that the salary freeze was a result of her pregnancy  and maternity leave.    84.  Ms. Tolton contacted the then-Administrative Partner in the office, Partner Darren  Cottriel, who suggested that she come in for her performance review. Ms. Tolton then met with  Administrative Partner Cottriel and Irvine Partner-in-Charge Richard Grabowski. Both partners  initially gave Ms. Tolton vague but positive feedback, saying that she had done a good job and  was on the right track.    85.  Ms. Tolton then asked why her salary had been frozen if her performance was good.  Partners Cottriel and Grabowski then attempted to backtrack, asserting that they had received  complaints about her work. Ms. Tolton, however, had brought to the meeting a binder of emails  and documents in which clients and colleagues praised her work. She presented this binder of  positive feedback to Partners Cottriel and Grabowski and pressed them for specific complaints.  The partners admitted that they could not cite to any negative reviews, and suggested that Ms.  Tolton speak with her reviewers.    87.  After obtaining her personnel files from the Firm under California law in 2018, Ms.  Tolton was able to confirm that the reviews on which her 2016 compensation was supposedly  based had, in fact, been overwhelmingly positive, a fact certainly not reflected in her compensation  for that year.   88.  After her 2016 review, Ms. Tolton worked to draft an email memorializing and  expanding upon her reasons for believing that Jones Day had given her a negative review and  frozen her salary in response to her gender and pregnancy rather than because of any performance  deficiencies on her part. While she was drafting the email, however, Ms. Tolton discovered that  she was pregnant with her second child.    89.  Terrified that she was already facing possible termination for having had her first  child, Ms. Tolton went to Administrative Partner Cottriel’s office and disclosed both her pregnancy  and her fear that Jones Day would not permit her to take another leave. Partner Cottriel assured  Ms. Tolton that she would be able to take a second leave. He also expressed understanding that  returning from parental leave was challenging and asked her to let him know if she needed to limit  her capacity at all. This instruction that Ms. Tolton did not need to work to capacity was seconded  by Of Counsel Michelle Blum.   91.  Around this time, Ms. Tolton’s doctor informed her that she could not keep up this  work schedule and wrote a note to that effect, which she submitted to Administrative Partner  Cottriel. Ms. Tolton sought out projects that would permit her to work to capacity while  accommodating her pregnancy-related limitations. Partner Cottriel, however, despite his earlier  assurances that he would help Ms. Tolton limit her work if necessary, now summoned Ms. Tolton  to a conference room to chastise her for not working hard enough and accuse her of misstating her  capacity. Partner O’Connor, who was also present, sat in silence.   92.  Even facing down this criticism, Ms. Tolton delivered exceptional results, settling  several of Partner O’Connor’s cases, including negotiating global settlements of cases assigned to  other Jones Day attorneys, rather than passing them off for unnecessary trials. In the following  months, from December 2016 through March 2017, Ms. Tolton continued to work hard for the  Firm, billing approximately 200 hours per month on an important matter for another major Firm  client.   93.  In March 2017, Ms. Tolton went on her second parental leave. Jones Day informed  her in June that, once again, it was freezing her salary. In her first days back from leave, in October  2017, Ms. Tolton was again called in for her annual review. Partners Grabowski and Cottriel then  told Ms. Tolton that she “should look for other opportunities outside the Firm,” adding that she  had six months to leave. As pretext for her abrupt termination, Partners Grabowski and Cottriel  falsely accused Ms. Tolton of having misstated her work capacity when she had been physically  incapacitated due to her pregnancy.   95.  Ms. Tolton had served as a mentor to several female attorneys in her office. After  she gave notice that she was leaving the Firm, a number of these attorneys approached her with  questions about her departure. She told them the truth: that Jones Day had made it clear to her  through its compensation decisions and performance evaluations that she no longer had a future at  the Firm.   96.  The Firm swiftly retaliated. A few days before her scheduled last day, Ms. Tolton  found herself locked out of her Jones Day email. Partner-in-Charge Grabowski and Administrative  Partner Cottriel then called Ms. Tolton at home in the middle of her son’s first birthday party. They  told her that they would ship her belongings to her and barred her from returning to the office.   97.  In response to this abrupt and retaliatory termination, Ms. Tolton wrote a follow- up email to these partners, noting that she was being terminated for honestly sharing her experience  at Jones Day with her coworkers.    98.  As a result of the discrimination that she experienced at Jones Day, Ms. Tolton  suffered from and continues to suffer from significant emotional distress.   B.  A.   NILAB RAHYAR TOLTON   COUNT 1  VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,  42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq.  VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e),  et seq.,  as amended by the PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 1978  VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964,  42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), et seq.,   WRONGFUL TERMINATION  On Behalf of Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4  434.  Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4 re-allege and incorporate by reference  each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully  set forth herein.  435.  Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4 each filed a timely charge with the  EEOC on behalf of herself and the Class Members. Plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 4 may  “piggyback” off the first-in-time filing of Plaintiff Tolton because Plaintiff Tolton’s EEOC charge  relates to the same claims that Plaintiff Jane Doe 2 and Jane Doe 4 assert.  436.  Jones Day terminated the employment of Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane  Doe 4 due to gender and/or pregnancy and maternity discrimination. Jones Day’s discharge of  Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4 was an adverse employment action that materially  and adversely changed the overall terms and conditions of their employment in violation of Title  VIOLATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HUMAN RIGHTS ACT  D.C. Code §§ 2-1401, et seq.  WRONGFUL TERMINATION  On behalf of Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4  447.  Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4 re-allege and incorporate by reference  each and every allegation contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully  set forth herein.  448.  Jones Day, an employer within the meaning of the DCHRA, wrongfully terminated  the employment of Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4 due to gender and/or pregnancy  and maternity discrimination, acting through decision-maker Managing Partner Stephen J. Brogan,  working out of the Firm’s District of Columbia office. Jones Day’s termination was an adverse  employment action that materially and adversely affected the employment of Plaintiffs Tolton,  Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe 4 in violation of the DCHRA.  449.  Jones Day’s conduct was intentional, deliberate, willful, malicious, and reckless,  and was conducted in callous disregard of the rights of Plaintiffs Tolton, Jane Doe 2, and Jane Doe  