Associate alleges Troutman Pepper Locke moved partnership goalposts after heart attack

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.