Case Background
Anisha Mehta worked as a seventh-year associate in the Intellectual Property and Technology group at the law firm DLA Piper LLP. She graduated from Kent State University in 2012 and earned her law degree from the University of Illinois Chicago School of Law in 2015. Before she joined DLA Piper in October 2021, she built an extensive legal background. She began her legal career at Niro McAndrews, a boutique intellectual property litigation firm in Chicago, where she assisted a prominent client in winning a large trademark infringement jury award. Later, she moved to Ulmer & Berne LLP to handle trademark prosecution, copyright enforcement, and portfolio management. Recruiters eventually sought her out for K&L Gates LLP, where she spent more than three and a half years managing large-scale trademark portfolios and advising corporate clients. While working at K&L Gates, she attended a client summit in 2020 and met Gina Durham, a longtime partner and Deputy Practice Group Leader at DLA Piper. Durham recruited her to join DLA Piper as a senior associate.
Cause
DLA Piper terminated Mehta's employment on October 4, 2022, when she was six months pregnant with her first child. Just six days prior to her termination, she had submitted a formal request for maternity leave estimating that her leave would begin in late January 2023. Mehta asserted that the firm faced client downward pressure on billing rates and a reduction in billable work, which made management unwilling to pay her salary while she took leave. DLA Piper maintained that the termination resulted entirely from her inability to perform at the expected level. The firm stated that she misadvised clients, filed a trademark application in Singapore instead of Switzerland, drafted a response on behalf of the wrong company, and provided legal analysis under the incorrect body of law.
Injury
Mehta alleged that her sudden termination stripped her of her healthcare benefits and salary during her final trimester. Because her pregnancy was visibly apparent, her chances of securing new employment for the foreseeable future disappeared. She suffered severe mental anguish, emotional distress, anxiety, humiliation, and a significant loss of self-esteem.
Damages Sought
Mehta filed a lawsuit seeking economic damages, back pay, and front pay to remedy her lost income. She also sought compensatory damages for severe emotional distress, mental anguish, and humiliation. Additionally, she requested liquidated damages, punitive damages for willful negligence and conscious disregard of her rights, prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Anisha Mehta
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Jeanne-Marie Bates Christensen | Kassandra Vazquez | Monica Hincken | Noah Jacobs
Defendant(s): DLA Piper LLP (US)
Counsel for Defendant(s): Brett Ingerman | Jacob Isaac Chefitz | Jamie Brensilber | Jessica Ann Masella | Jonathan Michael Kinney | Amalia Elizabeth Reiss | Harris Michael Mufson | Joseph Ruckert | Michele L. Maryott | Molly Senger
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Counsel for Mehta argued that DLA Piper intentionally discriminated against her based on her pregnancy and caregiver status. They emphasized that the firm raised her base salary three times between October 2021 and March 2022, increasing her pay by 21 percent. The firm also awarded her a six-figure year-end bonus for 2021. Her attorneys pointed out that supervisors never provided a performance review, never warned her about quality issues, and never placed her on a performance improvement plan. They asserted that Durham feigned disappointment and used minor generalizations to manufacture a performance issue just days after Mehta requested leave. Counsel argued that the firm violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Defense
Counsel for DLA Piper countered that the firm is an industry leader in promoting women attorneys and parents, providing 18 weeks of fully paid parental leave. They presented records showing that the firm provided paid family leave to 66 lawyers in 2022, including 12 lawyers within Mehta's specific practice group. The defense argued that her salary increases simply matched market rate adjustments for all standard seventh-year associates rather than reflecting individual excellence. They explained that Mehta did not receive a formal performance review because she left the firm before the annual review cycle began, and she did not receive a performance improvement plan because the firm does not use them for lawyers. The defense argued that her repeated mistakes threatened client relationships and that the firm offered her a six-month separation package, which she rejected.
Jury Verdict
The jury returned a verdict form on April 15, 2026, after completing deliberations in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Judge Analisa Torres presided over the trial.
New York City Human Rights Law Claim
The jury decided that Ms. Mehta did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that DLA Piper LLP discriminated against her on the basis of her pregnancy in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. The jurors checked the "No" box for this claim.
Family Medical Leave Act Interference Claim
The jury decided that Ms. Mehta did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that DLA Piper LLP was liable for interference with her intent to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. The jurors checked the "No" box for this claim.
Family Medical Leave Act Retaliation Claim
The jury decided that Ms. Mehta did not prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that DLA Piper LLP was liable for retaliation in response to her request to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act. The jurors checked the "No" box for this claim.
Because the jury voted "No" on all three liability questions, they followed the form instructions to skip all subsequent sections regarding back pay, front pay, emotional distress, mitigation of damages, nominal damages, and punitive damages. The jurors did not award any monetary damages to the Plaintiff. Juror 8 and the other members of the panel signed and dated the form to finalize the take-nothing verdict in favor of DLA Piper LLP.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
