Gibson Dunn has secured a comprehensive defence verdict for Bloomberg BNA in a multi-week jury trial at Los Angeles Superior Court, with the jury finding in the media and legal information group’s favour on all remaining claims brought by a former sales employee alleging sex and pregnancy discrimination.
The plaintiff, a former legal-products sales employee of Bloomberg BNA — part of Bloomberg Industry Group — brought claims spanning sex and pregnancy discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination, and constructive termination. She sought both economic and emotional distress damages, alleging that following her announcement of pregnancy she was reassigned to a different role, and that on her return from maternity leave she was again moved, which she contended caused her an inability to earn commissions as a single mother.
Before the jury reached its verdict, the court granted nonsuit in Bloomberg BNA’s favour on the failure to prevent discrimination claim. The jury then found for Bloomberg BNA on all remaining causes of action, awarding no damages, with jurors siding with the company by an 11-1 margin — exceeding the 9-3 threshold required for a defence verdict under California civil procedure.
The Gibson Dunn trial team was led by partners Michele L. Maryott and Marcellus McRae, supported by associates Allison Mather, Eleni Ingram, Kathryn Chevalier, Haley Denler and Daniel Liu. The firm’s strategy centred on building a consistent factual narrative across all witnesses that reframed the plaintiff’s account of reassignment as performance-driven business decisions rather than adverse action connected to pregnancy. The team focused on credibility: evidence emerged that the plaintiff’s trial testimony was materially inconsistent with her own statements and conduct during employment, which the Gibson Dunn team used to undercut causation at the heart of each discrimination claim.
The result carries practical weight beyond the verdict itself. Pregnancy and maternity discrimination claims remain among the most difficult employment cases for corporate defendants to defend before a jury, precisely because factual complexity competes with a naturally sympathetic claimant narrative. The California Fair Employment and Housing Act imposes broad obligations on employers, and Los Angeles juries have historically returned significant plaintiff verdicts in discrimination matters. A defence verdict secured 11-1 on all remaining counts, following a successful nonsuit application on one claim, represents a disciplined litigation outcome that in-house employment counsel at large organisations will study closely.
For law firm management and employment practice leaders advising clients on trial strategy, the case illustrates that pre-trial investment in coherent witness preparation and a clear performance narrative — rather than relying solely on procedural motions — can neutralise a complicated factual record in front of a jury. Firms and their clients facing similar claims in California should note that nonsuit applications remain underused at the close of a plaintiff’s case and can remove entire claim categories before deliberation begins.
As employment litigation volumes in California continue to run at elevated levels, the Bloomberg BNA outcome reinforces that disciplined trial strategy, credibility-focused cross-examination and consistent internal documentation remain the most reliable defences available to in-house legal teams and their outside counsel when discrimination claims reach trial.