1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days…

Disability Law

Lawyer alleges BigLaw firm fired her 11 days after she disclosed epilepsy diagnosis, violating disability law

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 10, 2025, 9:00 am CDT

A former lawyer at Ballard Spahr has filed a lawsuit alleging that she was fired for taking medical leave after suffering gastrointestinal problems and a seizure.

Kimberly Steefel, a former of counsel for Ballard Spahr, filed the April 8 suit in the U.S. District for the Southern District of New York, Law360 reports in a story noted by Above the Law.

Steefel learned that she was being fired in October 2022 on the day that she returned to the law firm’s New York office from medical leave, according to her suit. Only 11 days before she had disclosed her epilepsy diagnosis and her medical provider’s recommendation for an accommodation in the form of a flexible work schedule, the suit says.

Steefel suffered from gastrointestinal problems and what she thought was her first seizure before beginning the medical leave. She later sought “16 reasonable accommodations for her epilepsy,” the suit says.

The accommodations stemmed from the effect of epilepsy on stamina and concentration and the need to “avoid environments pervaded by anxiety and hostility,” which can lower the seizure threshold, according to the suit.

There was no attempt to discuss accommodations, the suit says. Steefel was initially told that her employment would end no later than mid-January 2023, but the date was later pushed back to mid-April 2023.

Before she learned of her firing, Steefel had “received nothing but praise and positive feedback” for her work, the suit says.

Her suit alleges discrimination, retaliation, hostile treatment and wrongful termination on the basis of Steefel’s disabilities and gender in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and state and local anti-discrimination laws.

The suit alleges that the firm has a history of discriminating against disabled people, pointing to Ballard Spahr lawyer job ads with “nonsensical physical requirements” that include the ability to “stand, walk, bend and stoop,” to sit for long periods of time, and to “lift up to 40 pounds.”

Steefel also alleges that her practice group, the employee benefits and executive compensation group, created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex.

The group had a “systematic practice” of “replacing the junior- or mid-level female attorneys with other female attorneys at the same or lower level, thus keeping the cycle of maintaining females at lower-level positions only, and at the same time, hiring into and promoting to more senior-level positions only males,” the suit says.

Ballard Spahr provided this statement to the ABA Journal: “The firm disputes the allegations contained in Ms. Steefel’s complaint, and in particular, that she was terminated due to an alleged disability or her gender. The firm will defend the case vigorously.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Federal judge who sought female attorneys…

Judiciary

Federal judge who sought female attorneys among class counsel has acknowledged sex-bias concerns, order says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 9:21 am CDT

A federal judge who called for female attorneys to be “adequately represented” on the leadership team for plaintiffs in multidistrict contraceptive litigation has “acknowledged the concerns created by her statements,” according to an order closing an ethics inquiry.

U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the Northern District of Florida “has taken appropriate voluntary corrective action that acknowledges and remedies the problems created by her statements,” wrote Chief Judge William H. Pryor Jr. of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Atlanta in the March 20 order.

Conservative activist Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project—a conservative group—filed a complaint against Rodgers after she said during a Feb. 21 case management conference and in a Feb. 23 order that she thinks that female attorneys have to be “adequately represented” on the leadership team given the female plaintiffs in the contraceptive drug Depo-Provera litigation.

Davis had released the complaint and his organization, the Article III Project, published online articles about it. He alleged that Rodgers’ statements amounted to discrimination based on sex and constituted judicial misconduct.

Rodgers omitted references to sex when she invited applications for leadership positions in a Feb. 28 order. All applicants would be considered based on merit, she said in the order. Then, in a March 13 hearing allowing nearly 70 applicants to give presentations, Rodgers said she would not give preferences to women to avoid the appearance of impermissible sex discrimination.

Pryor said Rodgers’ voluntary corrective action was sufficient while warning that judges can’t discriminate based on sex when selecting class counsel.

Pryor noted a 2013 statement by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a cert denial in which he criticized a judge’s “unique” requirement that class counsel fairly reflect the composition of plaintiffs.

What Alito described as a unique practice “has been touted as a ‘best practice’ in multidistrict litigation,” Pryor said. “Commentators openly encourage judges who preside over these actions to consider impermissible characteristics like sex or race when they appoint leadership counsel.”

Notions about a lawyer’s ability to fairly and adequately represent class interests “must exist within the bounds of the rules that govern judicial conduct, and those bounds prohibit discrimination based on sex,” Pryor said.

Law360 and Reuters are among the publications with coverage of the order, noted by How Appealing.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. BigLaw attorneys who are ‘frequent practitioners’…

Civil Procedure

BigLaw attorneys who are ‘frequent practitioners’ in federal district can’t be admitted pro hac vice, judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 5, 2025, 3:45 pm CST

Two Baker & Hostetler lawyers won’t be able to represent a compounding pharmacy in a lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, at least for now, after a federal judge in the Northern District of Texas denied their application to appear pro hac vice.

Partner Andrew M. Grossman and associate Marc N. Wagner cannot be admitted pro hac vice because they are “frequent practitioners” in cases filed in the Northern District of Texas, said U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman of the Northern District of Texas in a March 3 order.

Law360 covered the decision, noting that pro hac vice motions “are common and usually regarded as an afterthought. They are rarely denied.”

A pro hac vice admission means that a lawyer has been admitted to practice in a jurisdiction in only one particular case, Pittman said. In the past year, however, Grossman submitted three such applications, while Wagner submitted four of them in the Northern District of Texas, including the applications in the case before Pittman.

The lawyers, Pittman said, are encouraged “to file applications to be admitted to practice in this court, and [this court] would happily welcome them as members of the bar.”

Grossman is licensed in Washington, D.C., and admitted to practice before nearly every federal appeals court. Wagner is licensed to practice in Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C.

Wagner and Grossman did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal email seeking comment. They are among six Baker & Hostetler lawyers who signed the Feb. 24 suit and among four who planned to seek pro hac vice admission in the case.

The suit challenges an FDA decision to remove the weight loss drug semaglutide from a shortage list, which meant that compounding pharmacies were no longer allowed to help satisfy demand. The plaintiffs in the suit are a compounding pharmacy and a trade association that represents compounding facilities.

Pittman appears to be a stickler for the rules. He previously dismissed a suit because of a missed deadline to file a certificate of interested persons and sanctioned two lawyers in a different suit for submitting declarations instead of notarized affidavits as he had directed.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. SCOTUS will decide whether Medicaid beneficiaries…

U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUS will decide whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue over state’s defunding of Planned Parenthood

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 23, 2024, 9:23 am CST

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Wednesday to consider whether Medicaid beneficiaries can sue over South Carolina’s decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

Although federal law generally bars Medicaid from paying for abortions, it does allow payment to abortion providers for other medical services, SCOTUSblog explains. Planned Parenthood had provided birth control, cancer screenings and physical exams to low-income South Carolina residents before the state cut off all Medicaid funds for the organization in 2018, according to the group’s brief opposing cert.

Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and one of its Medicaid patients sued.

At issue is whether beneficiaries can sue under Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act under an “any-qualified provider” provision of the Medicaid Act.

The law provides that “any individual eligible for medical assistance” under the law can obtain care from any institution ready and qualified to perform the services, according to a brief opposing cert by Planned Parenthood.

Besides SCOTUSblog, publications with coverage include the New York Times, the Washington Post and USA Today. How Appealing links to additional coverage.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Richmond, Virginia, had allowed the lawsuit, according to New York Times.

“This case is, and always has been, about whether Congress conferred an individually enforceable right for Medicaid beneficiaries to freely choose their health care provider,” the 4th Circuit said. “Preserving access to Planned Parenthood and other providers means preserving an affordable choice and quality care for an untold number of mothers and infants in South Carolina.”

Federal appeals courts are split on the issue of a private right of action, according to South Carolina.

“Whether a private party can drag a state into federal court for disqualifying a provider should not turn merely on where that state is located,” says the state’s cert petition.

But the brief opposing cert argues that there is no split because the two appeals courts that found no private right of action ruled in cases in which a medical provider was terminated for cause, a factor not present in the South Carolina case.

South Carolina is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal advocacy group.

“Taxpayer dollars should never be used to fund facilities that make a profit off abortion,” said Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer John Bursch in a statement cited by news coverage.

The case is Kerr v. Planned Parenthood.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law…

Tort Law

Opioid suits can’t be based on nuisance law in Ohio, top state court rules in $650M win for pharmacies

By Debra Cassens Weiss

December 12, 2024, 3:23 pm CST

A decision by the Ohio Supreme Court on the state’s product-liability law is good news for three national pharmaceutical chains ordered to pay more than $650 million for contributing to the opioid epidemic.

The state supreme court ruled Dec. 10 that the Ohio Product Liability Act eliminated all common-law nuisance claims in connection with the sale of products, Court News Ohio reports. The state supreme court ruled after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Cincinnati asked for a ruling on the impact of the state law as amended.

The 6th Circuit certified the question to the Ohio Supreme Court in an appeal of a $650.6 million judgment against CVS, Walmart and Walgreens. The lawsuit was among several bellwether cases used to test claims and defenses chosen from about 3,000 opioid suits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Two Ohio counties had contended that the damages awarded were for abatement of the nuisance, rather than for compensatory damages. As a result, the law didn’t bar their claims, they argued.

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled, however, that the type of relief requested is immaterial under the law as written. The state supreme court also rejected the counties’ claim that the nuisance suit didn’t meet the definition of a product-liability claim because there were no allegations of a product defect.

The three drug companies praised the ruling, Bloomberg Law reports. Walgreens said in a statement the decision “allows us to put this litigation behind us so we can continue focusing on the health and well-being of our patients, customers and team members in northern Ohio and across the country.”

Peter H. Weinberger represented the plaintiffs—Lake County and Trumbull County in Ohio. He told Bloomberg Law that the decision “will have a devastating impact on communities and their ability to police corporate misconduct.”

Nationwide, he said, opioid settlements with drugmakers, distributors and pharmacies total nearly $60 billion. The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision “undermines the very legal basis that drove this result,” Weinberger told Bloomberg Law.

The Ohio Supreme Court is the second top state court to rule that public-nuisance laws cannot be used in opioid suits.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in November 2021 that Johnson & Johnson’s opioid marketing did not create a public nuisance because it concerned the sale of a lawful product. The decision overturned a $465 million verdict.