Biglaw and the Boundaries of Disability Discrimination: The Case Against Ballard Spahr
There are legitimate reasons employers let go of staff — declining performance, misconduct, or business restructuring. But firing an employee because they got sick? That crosses not only moral lines but legal ones as well. For law firms, especially those bringing in hundreds of millions in revenue, the stakes are even higher when allegations of discrimination arise.
In 2023, Ballard Spahr LLP reported an impressive $484 million in gross revenue, making it a prominent player in the Biglaw arena. But now, the firm finds itself under intense scrutiny — not for a high-profile merger or landmark case, but for allegedly violating the rights of one of its own attorneys.
Former Ballard Spahr Attorney Alleges Retaliation for Medical Leave
Kimberly Steefel, a former attorney in Ballard Spahr’s employee benefits and executive compensation group, filed a 64-page federal lawsuit in New York against the firm and Brian Pinheiro, head of that group. She alleges that she was fired after requesting medical leave and reasonable accommodations related to epilepsy and a gastrointestinal condition.
The suit, covered by Law360, argues that her dismissal was not just unjust, but unlawful under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and New York state and city human rights laws.
Gender Bias Claims Add Fuel to the Fire
In addition to disability discrimination, Steefel’s complaint accuses the firm of systemic gender bias. She alleges that Ballard Spahr and Pinheiro routinely gave male attorneys more resources and higher-level positions, while women were relegated to supporting roles with fewer opportunities for advancement.
These claims could heighten the reputational and legal risks facing the firm, especially as the legal industry undergoes broader reckonings around diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Health Crisis Sparks Legal Battle
Steefel’s ordeal began while she was attending a work-related conference, during which she fell ill. She was sent home — and on the way suffered an epileptic seizure. Following this, she was granted medical leave, during which she contacted Ballard Spahr’s HR department to clarify disability leave policies. She was told such leave was generally capped at six months.
Steefel returned to work within that window, expecting to resume her duties. But instead of being supported, she claims her requests for accommodation — including a more flexible work schedule to manage flare-ups — were ignored entirely.
Given the remote work adaptations during COVID-19 and a renewed focus on mental health and chronic illness, her requests appear far from unreasonable. And yet, she was ultimately terminated.
Legal Counsel Speaks Out
Ethan Krasnoo, Steefel’s attorney, issued a strong statement condemning her alleged treatment:
“No employees who can fulfill the essential functions of their job should be terminated or find themselves facing discrimination because of a disability. Ms. Steefel intends to vigorously fight in court the injustices that she alleges she encountered, and hopes that sharing her story will prevent further discrimination in the future.”
A Wake-Up Call for Biglaw: Is the Industry Prepared to Accommodate?
This case serves as a stark reminder to Biglaw firms across the country: compliance with the ADA and related laws isn’t optional. As firms push for higher billable hours and faster turnarounds, they must also reckon with the real human toll of those expectations — especially on employees managing chronic conditions.
Moreover, the lawsuit highlights the importance of equitable workplace policies for women in law, who continue to face disproportionate barriers to leadership roles.
