A high-stakes pregnancy discrimination fight against global law firm DLA Piper is set to unfold in Manhattan federal court on Monday, with a jury to decide whether a seventh-year associate was pushed out for poor performance or punished for planning to have a baby.
The plaintiff, Anisha Mehta, says the firm fired her while she was six months pregnant, shortly after she told supervisors she intended to take maternity leave in late 2022. DLA Piper flatly denies any unlawful bias and insists the termination was driven by performance problems, not her pregnancy.
Trial Date and Where the Showdown Happens
According to a court order posted on Justia, jury selection and trial are scheduled to start April 6, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 15D of the U.S. Courthouse at 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan. U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres is presiding and has laid out a detailed set of pretrial deadlines in a series of orders leading into the jury trial.
What Mehta Says Happened
Mehta filed suit in June 2023, alleging that DLA Piper fired her on Oct. 4, 2022, six days after she formally requested maternity leave, while she was working as a seventh-year associate in the firm’s intellectual property group, according to the complaint filed by her lawyers at Wigdor LLP.
The complaint says partners had previously praised her work and argues that the timing of her termination, which came just before annual bonuses and during a slowdown in billable opportunities in her practice group, signals that the stated reason for her firing was a pretext. Mehta is seeking damages under federal, New York State and New York City anti-discrimination laws.
How the Firm Defends Itself
DLA Piper has pushed back hard in court, telling the judge that Mehta’s work did not meet the standard expected of a seventh-year associate and describing what it calls a pattern of mistakes that led to her dismissal, as reported by Bloomberg. The firm asked the court to toss the case on that basis and argued that partners had already lost confidence in her performance before she announced that she was pregnant. DLA maintains its personnel decisions were lawful and based solely on performance.
What the Judge Has Already Said
In a 2025 order, Judge Torres concluded that Mehta “presented evidence that could reasonably cast doubt on DLA’s purported reason for firing her” and allowed her discrimination, Family and Medical Leave Act interference and retaliation claims to proceed to trial, in a ruling summarized by Wigdor LLP.
The judge pointed to the timing of the termination, which came roughly two months after Mehta told the firm she was pregnant and shortly before bonuses were set to be paid, as potentially significant. Jurors will now sift through competing narratives, internal emails and other documents as they weigh whether performance or pregnancy drove the decision.
Why Big Law Is Watching
Employment lawyers and legal industry observers say the case shines a light on how billable-hour pressure and bonus timing can collide with parental-leave protections inside large law firms. Managing IP noted that the controversy raises uncomfortable questions about whether Big Law’s public diversity and inclusion pledges line up with how firms actually handle leaves and promotions behind closed doors. A verdict in Mehta’s favor could prompt firms to revisit how they evaluate performance around planned parental leaves.
Mehta is represented by Wigdor LLP, while DLA Piper is defending itself with a team from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, according to reporting by Bloomberg. Jury selection and opening statements are slated for Monday in Manhattan, and the trial is expected to draw close attention across the legal world.
