Lawyer contends firm was biased
Mintz associate lodges complaint
A female associate at Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky, and Popeo has filed a discrimination complaint against the Boston law firm, alleging that she was demoted because of her gender and treated unfairly after complaining about a male colleague's behavior.
In her complaint to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, Kamee B. Verdrager alleges she was subjected to gender discrimination and a hostile work environment shortly after she began working at Mintz in 2004, treatment that continued after she married and became pregnant. Verdrager, who is now on maternity leave with her second child, also claims she reluctantly accepted a demotion based on false accusations in one of her performance evaluations.
In a written reply to her complaint, Mintz denies Verdrager's allegations, portraying her as a poorly performing employee. According to the firm, Verdrager consistently received mixed job reviews, spent excessive time on assignments, and produced subpar work, requiring clients' bills to be discounted. They also allege she made errors that risked harming Mintz's reputation and left clients and other attorneys reluctant to work with her.
Verdrager, a graduate of Northeastern University and Georgetown University Law Center, contends her difficulties began after she complained to management about "inappropriate comments" made by Mintz partner Bret A. Cohen. In an interview yesterday, Verdrager, who bills about $475 hourly, said Cohen "doesn't behave as you would expect from a partner at a prominent law firm." She declined to provide specifics, saying she was concerned the firm might sue her for defamation.
Verdrager's complaint also alleges that partners David Barmak, Robert M. Gault, and Donald W. Schroeder subjected her to retaliatory treatment after she complained about Cohen.
Partner Michael S. Gardener, speaking for the firm, said Verdrager had "clear performance problems" and that Barmak, Gault, and Schroeder had repeatedly tried to help her improve. Her February 2007 demotion was not retaliatory, Gardener said, but intended to "let her work at a level that was more appropriate for her, and give her an opportunity to impress clients, impress other attorneys at the firm, and move up."
Verdrager and her attorney, Jonathan J. Margolis, noted that she also received some glowing reviews and that several critical statements were removed from one of her reviews after she protested.
"I certainly don't claim to be perfect," Verdrager said, "but numerous Mintz Levin clients and attorneys have praised my performance repeatedly, and I believe a lot of the criticism has been inaccurate."
Verdrager's complaint also alleges that when she notified the firm she was getting married, Gault suggested she take a cut in salary and status to ensure her job security. When she disclosed she was pregnant, he suggested she take a reduced salary in exchange for a reduced schedule, even though she had not asked for a lighter workload, according to the complaint.
Verdrager's complaint is the second time in recent years Mintz has been hit with a discrimination allegation by a female employee. In 2005, a federal appeals court affirmed a jury verdict that Mintz's Reston, Va., office had retaliated against a female associate because of her complaints of gender discrimination.
However, a US District Court dismissed the gender discrimination complaint.
According to Mintz, which was named a "best law firm for women" by Working Mother magazine last year, women comprise about half the firm's attorneys and about 18 percent of its partners.
Sacha Pfeiffer can be reached at pfeiffer@globe.com.
