A $3,000 personal payment, a 48-hour ultimatum and internal billing complaints, the filing says
A senior lawyer says his firm moved the partnership goalposts after he survived a heart attack and took medical leave.
Those allegations are set out in a complaint filed on August 18, 2026 in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey against Troutman Pepper Locke LLP and two of its partners. The lawyer brings claims under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act, along with two New Jersey statutes covering disability discrimination and whistleblower retaliation.
According to the filing, he joined the firm's Princeton office in April 2018, when it operated under a predecessor name. The complaint says that before his heart attack he received bonuses in every year of his employment, was appointed to the firm's associate liaison committee, and was appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to a district ethics committee. It alleges a partner told him that if he performed well on a Federal Trade Commission investigation response, he would make partner.
The complaint alleges that on or around November 6, 2023, while working alone late at night in the Princeton office, he suffered a heart attack. It describes the event as a ST-elevation myocardial infarction, known as a “widow-maker,” with “only a 10% chance of survival.” According to the filing, he reached home and was taken to hospital, where his heart stopped later that night and he required emergency resuscitation and surgery. He took FMLA leave and returned to work on or around March 11, 2024.
What the complaint says happened next is the core of the employment claim. It alleges that within weeks of his return, a partner who sat on the firm's associate development committee recommended he move to a part-time schedule. Then, on a call on or around April 16, 2024, the filing says his supervising partner told him that because of the heart attack and his recovery time, “the goalposts to make Partner” had been moved. The complaint alleges no explanation was ever given for how a medical emergency changed the promotion criteria.
From there the filing describes a pattern familiar to anyone who has audited a promotion process. It alleges he was assigned to a large multi-district litigation in a project manager capacity, tracking action items and taking notes, after years of running depositions and arguing motions. The complaint says he billed more than 3,000 hours to that matter, more than any other attorney by several hundred hours, but that supervising attorney credit went instead to a colleague who had billed 4.5 hours. On a related state attorney general matter, the filing alleges he billed 180.8 hours and the same colleague billed none, and the credit again went to the colleague.
He was repeatedly told the credit did not affect promotion decisions, the complaint alleges. It says he later heard the firm's chair discuss on a firm podcast, in an episode released in or around November 2025, that attorney credit including supervising attorney credit was in fact an important factor in partnership and compensation decisions.
The filing says he learned on or around February 28, 2025 that he would receive no bonus for 2024, despite hitting his billable hour targets. Days later, on or around March 6, 2025, it alleges the partner from the development committee told him his “economic profile” did not warrant a raise or bonus, and that he needed to “make a decision” about whether to stay at the firm.
Then comes the detail most likely to stop an HR reader mid-scroll. On or around March 29, 2025, the complaint alleges, his supervising partner sent him a $3,000 Zelle payment directly to his personal bank account, told him he was “putting his money where his mouth was,” and instructed him not to tell anyone. The filing says the memo line on the payment read, “Hope this helps with the cabinets.”
The complaint also sets out what it calls “a systematic scheme of fraudulent billing orchestrated by his supervising Partners.” It alleges partners directed the team to “fabricate work” that was not needed, bill unrelated non-litigation work to a litigation file covered by insurance, and shape billing narratives so entries would not be flagged by the client's insurer. According to the filing, the billing attorney on the matter instructed him to “make the time entry sound ‘litigation related’” even when the work had nothing to do with the litigation. On a separate assignment, the complaint alleges she told him, “No one is going to look at this — just do it.”
The complaint says he raised concerns with two partners in May 2025 and, on or around February 9, 2026, reported the treatment following his medical leave, the billing practices and the retaliation to the firm's general counsel's office. It alleges the firm ran two investigations that “unsurprisingly exonerated the Firm.”
The retaliation sequence the complaint describes is the part worth reading twice if you own an evaluation process. It notes that partner evaluations were due in October 2025, a few months after the internal reports, and alleges three partners submitted “conspicuously coordinated” negative reviews contradicted by the other positive evaluations he received for the same year. At an evaluation conference on or around January 21, 2026, the filing says he was told he would not be nominated for partnership because he had an “associate mentality” and did too much associate-level work. It alleges his supervising partner then said he had “made up” a significant amount of that same work.
The complaint alleges the development committee partner later called him into her office and told him to stop pushing the issues “for [his] own good,” warning that pressing to have the remark recorded in his evaluation file would not help his career at the firm. When he pushed back, the filing says, she responded that evaluation memos do not always reflect what was actually said verbatim during conferences.
On May 13, 2026, according to the complaint, a senior firm administrator called to say that based on statements he made during the investigations, which he had assumed were confidential, the firm understood he was “having difficulty” working with partners in his practice group. She suggested a “transition package,” the filing alleges, and gave him 48 hours to decide.
He is seeking reinstatement or promotion, compensatory and punitive damages, and legal costs, and has demanded a jury trial. The complaint states he intends to amend it to add claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act once administrative prerequisites are exhausted.
The allegations have not been tested in court. The defendants have not yet filed a response, and no court has ruled on any of the claims.
