## Facts

- Ariel Ayanna worked as an associate attorney in Dechert LLP’s Boston office starting in 2005, initially meeting billable-hour expectations and receiving positive reviews and a bonus.
- During his second year, while working from Munich, his wife’s mental health worsened after pregnancy, and she suffered serious mental illness.
- Ayanna took FMLA leave and related leave to care for his wife and newborn child, then returned to Boston and worked closely with partner Christopher Christian.
- Ayanna alleged Christian reacted negatively to his leave, monitored him more closely than other associates, and treated him as less reliable after family-related absences.
- Ayanna alleged Christian and others diverted assignments away from him after his leave and after a hospitalization episode involving his wife, causing a steep decline in his billable hours.
- Dechert terminated Ayanna on December 17, 2008, citing his performance rating and “personal issues.”
- Ayanna asserted he was not warned that his job was in jeopardy despite allegedly similar or worse billable-hour shortfalls by other associates who received warnings and chances to improve.
- Ayanna claimed the firm’s reactions reflected gender-role assumptions that male associates should not prioritize caregiving responsibilities.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable jury to find Dechert retaliated against Ayanna for taking FMLA leave by reducing his work opportunities and terminating him based on resulting low billable hours.
2. Whether Ayanna produced sufficient evidence under Massachusetts General Laws ch. 151B to proceed on a disparate-treatment sex discrimination theory that he was treated adversely because he was a male caregiver.

## Decision

- The court denied Dechert’s motion for summary judgment on the FMLA retaliation claim.
- The court denied Dechert’s motion for summary judgment on the Massachusetts ch. 151B sex discrimination claim.
- The court held that disputes of material fact existed as to whether Dechert’s stated reasons were pretext for retaliation and sex-based disparate treatment.

## Legal Principles

- An FMLA retaliation claim may proceed under a burden-shifting framework requiring evidence of protected activity, adverse action, and a causal connection; the employer must articulate a legitimate reason, and the plaintiff may prove pretext and retaliatory motive.
- Low billable hours can be a legitimate reason to discharge a law-firm associate, but summary judgment is improper where evidence supports an inference that the employer reduced work assignments and then relied on the resulting low hours as the justification.
- Temporal proximity, statements reflecting concern about an employee’s family-care obligations, and disparate application of warnings or corrective opportunities can support a causal inference and pretext in retaliation cases.
- Massachusetts ch. 151B sex discrimination includes adverse treatment rooted in gender stereotypes; treating a man unfavorably because he undertakes caregiving responsibilities traditionally associated with women can constitute actionable sex discrimination.
- A sex-stereotyping “male caregiver” theory is cognizable where the evidence could permit a finding that gender-based role expectations motivated adverse employment action.

## Conclusion

The court allowed Ayanna’s FMLA retaliation and Massachusetts sex discrimination claims to proceed to trial because a reasonable jury could find that post-leave work diversion, comments and conduct tied to caregiving, and the lack of warning before termination supported an inference of retaliatory and sex-stereotyping motives rather than a neutral performance-based discharge.


Ayanna v. Dechert LLP, 914 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D. Mass. 2012)