|
|
|
Law firm to pay millions in age discrimination case
Headline News |
2007/10/06 04:09
|
One of the nation's largest law firms has agreed to pay a $27.5-million settlement to 32 former partners to end a ground-breaking age discrimination case, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced today. The case against Sidley Austin, which has more than 1,700 lawyers in 16 cities, including Los Angeles, had been closely watched because of a widely held belief in the legal profession that firm partners did not qualify for the protections of federal anti-discrimination laws because they were deemed "employers."
But the EEOC, in a lawsuit filed in 2005, contended that the cashiered lawyers were partners in name only, because they had no voice in the firm's management, including hiring, firing and salary decisions. Consequently, the lawyers were "employees" entitled to protections of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The firm vigorously defended the case, but lost key preliminary rounds in U.S. District Court in Chicago and at the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court declined to review the decisions. Eventually, the Chicago-based firm decided to settle by agreeing to a consent decree without admitting wrongdoing.
However, Sidley Austin, in the consent decree, approved by U.S. District Judge James B. Zagel in Chicago on Thursday, made a significant concession, agreeing "that each person for whom the EEOC has sought relief in this matter was an employee within the meaning of" the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.
The decree also includes an injunction that bars the firm from "terminating, expelling, retiring, reducing the compensation of or otherwise adversely changing the partnership status of a partner because of age," or "maintaining any formal or informal policy or practice requiring retirement as a partner or requiring permission to continue as a partner once the partner has reached a certain age."
John Hendrickson, the EEOC's regional attorney in Chicago, said he thought the outcome set an important benchmark.
"Up to now, with no particularly good reason that I can discern, people in control of law firms said that if they called someone a partner ... they didn't need to worry about federal employment discrimination laws," he said.
"What the Sidley case says is that you have evidence that people are called partners, but in reality are not active in the governance of the firm and don't control their own destiny in the firm. You can call them whatever you want, but for the purposes of the Age Discrimination Act they are employees," Hendrickson said.
He said the case ensured "the protection of professionals from discriminatory employment actions" and ratified the authority of the EEOC "to investigate and obtain relief for victims of age discrimination on its own initiative."
During the litigation, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the agency was entitled to obtain records that could show whether the lawyers should have been protected under age discrimination law.
In that key ruling, Judge Richard Posner, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, rejected Sidley's argument that the law did not apply to partners. Posner said he was particularly unconvinced by "Sidley's contention that since the executive committee [of the firm] exercises its absolute power by virtue of delegation by the entire partnership in the partnership agreement, we should treat the entire partnership as if it rather than the executive committee were directing the firm. That would be like saying that if the people elect a person to be dictator for life, the government is a democracy rather than a dictatorship."
Ronald S. Cooper, the EEOC's general counsel in Washington, emphasized the broader ramifications of the settlement.
"The demographic changes in America assure that we will see more opportunities for age discrimination to occur. Therefore it is increasingly important that all employers understand the impact of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act on their operations and that we reemphasize its important protection for older workers," he said.
The amount to be paid to each of the 32 former Sidley lawyers was placed under seal. However, the EEOC said that the payments averaged $859,375 per attorney, and ranged from a low of $122,169 to a high of $1,835,510. The EEOC said each of the lawyers either had been "expelled from the partnership in connection with an October 1999 reorganization or retired under the firm's age-based retirement policy."
The EEOC began an investigation of Sidley in 2001 after major changes at the firm. According to the suit, the firm for many years had a mandatory retirement age of 65. But in 1999, 32 lawyers -- all over age 40 -- were told that their status was being downgraded from partner to "special counsel" or "counsel," and that their pay would be reduced by about 10%. They also were told that they would soon have to leave the firm.
David A. Richards, one of the 32, said he thought the firm had taken the action, at least in part, to increase profits for the remaining partners. Richards, who was 54 at the time, said when he was told of his change in status, there was "absolutely" no contention that managing partners had problems with his performance.
A year or so later, Richards landed a job with McCarter & English, a large New York firm, where he still works as a real estate lawyer. On Friday, Richards said, "The settlement was overdue, but it gives all involved a satisfactory conclusion." The lawyers who sued now "have confirmation that their discharge was not for the quality of their work."
The commission, Richards emphasized, "has established an important legal principle for all large professional partnerships."
Sidley, through a New York public relations firm, issued a formal statement saying that it "believes that settling this case is preferable to the costs and uncertainties of continued litigation."
"This settlement puts the cost, time and distraction of this litigation behind us. Moreover, continuing litigation with the EEOC would have placed us in an adversarial position with former partners."
The firm said it continued to employ some of the lawyers who were stripped of their partnerships in 1999, but did not say how many.
The consent decree in the case runs until Dec. 31, 2009. During that period, Abner Mikva, a retired federal appeals court judge who also served as a Democratic congressman from Illinois and White House counsel during the Clinton administration, will monitor any complaints from former Sidney partners and report them to the EEOC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Watada's second court-martial on hold
Court Feed News |
2007/10/06 00:07
|
| The Tuesday court-martial of 1st Lt. Ehren Watada at Fort Lewis has been put on hold by a U.S. District Court judge, who issued his ruling late today. This would have been the second trial for Watada, who faces up to six years in military prison for his refusal to deploy to Iraq, and separate charges of conduct unbecoming an officer. Watada's first court-martial, which gained international attention, ended in a mistrial earlier this year. U.S. District Court Judge Benjamin Settle wants time to consider whether a second trial would violate Watada's constitutional rights that protect him from "double jeopardy" that is a guarantee against being twice put to trial for the same offense. "This Court has not been presented any evidence showing that Petitioner's double jeopardy claim lacks merit," Settle wrote. "On the contrary, the record indicates that Petitioner's double jeopardy claim is meritous." For Settle, another key issue is whether a civilian court has the right to step in and block a military trial. Settle said that, as a general rule, civilian courts should not step in to rule on military trials. But in this case, all of the appeals to military courts had been exhausted, so a civilian judge could become involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Judge allows class action over Target Web site
Class Action News |
2007/10/05 16:02
|
| A federal judge granted class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that Target Corp. is breaking California and federal law by failing to make its Web site usable for the blind. The plaintiffs fault Target for not adopting technology used by other companies to make Web sites accessible to the blind. The technology allows reading software to vocalize invisible code embedded in computer graphics and describe content on a Web page. Granting class-action status allows blind people throughout the country who have tried to access Target.com to become plaintiffs in the suit, which alleges violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Judge Marilyn Hall Patel also on Friday approved a separate class, made up of blind California residents who have attempted to use the site, to address the suit's charges that Target is violating state laws governing civil and disabled rights. "This is a tremendous step forward for blind people throughout the country who for too long have been denied equal access to the Internet economy," said Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind. "All e-commerce businesses should take note of this decision and immediately take steps to open their doors to the blind." The federation filed the suit — which originally was filed in California state court in February 2006 and moved at Target's request to San Francisco federal court the following month — on behalf of federation member and northern California resident Bruce Sexton. The suit alleged that "blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to Target stores" and the "service and benefits offered to the public through Target.com." Judge Patel's order Friday noted that Target has modified its Web site some since the suit's filing to make the site more accessible to the blind. Target claimed the suit should therefore be dismissed, but Judge Patel ruled against that argument. A Target official couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday morning. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democrats demand interrogation memos
U.S. Legal News |
2007/10/05 15:44
|
Senate and House Democrats demanded Thursday to see two secret Justice Department memos that reportedly authorize painful interrogation tactics against terrorism suspects. The memos -- legal opinions written in 2005 -- do not reverse the administration policy issued in 2004 that publicly renounced torture, White House and Justice Department spokespeople said. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) sent a letter to the acting attorney general saying the administration's credibility was at risk.
The memos are "critical to an appropriate assessment" of tactics approved by the White House and the Justice Department, Rockefeller wrote to Acting Atty. Gen. Peter D. Keisler. "Why should the public have confidence that the program is either legal or in the best interests of the United States?" he asked.
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and House Judiciary Committee member Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) promised a congressional inquiry into the memos, which reportedly explicitly authorized painful and psychological tactics.
"Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling, especially in light of the department's 2004 withdrawal of an earlier opinion similarly approving such methods," Conyers and Nadler wrote to Keisler on Thursday. Their letter requested copies of the memos.
They also asked that Steven G. Bradbury, who heads the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, "be made available for prompt committee hearings."
The New York Times disclosed the memos in Thursday's editions. It reported that the first 2005 legal opinion authorized the use during terrorism interrogations of slaps to the head, freezing conditions and simulated drownings, known as water-boarding.
That secret opinion explicitly allowed using the painful methods in combination and was issued "soon after" Alberto R. Gonzales became attorney general in February 2005, the New York Times reported. In a December 2004 opinion, the Justice Department had publicly declared torture "abhorrent," and the administration seemed to back away from claiming authority for such practices.
A second secret Justice Department opinion was issued later in 2005, as Congress was working on an anti-torture bill. That opinion said none of the CIA's interrogation practices would violate the legislation's bans on "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of detainees, the New York Times said, citing interviews with unnamed current and former officials.
The December 2004 legal opinion remains in effect, Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said.
"Neither Atty. Gen. Gonzales nor anyone else within the department modified or withdrew that opinion," Roehrkasse said in a statement. "Accordingly, any advice that the department would have provided in this area would rely upon, and be fully consistent with, the legal standards articulated in the December 2004 memorandum."
White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters: "This country does not torture. It is a policy of the United States that we do not torture, and we do not."
Perino would not comment on whether the 2005 opinions authorized specific interrogation practices, such as slaps to the head and simulated drowning. She initially said the first classified opinion was dated Feb. 5, 2005, but White House spokesman Tony Fratto corrected that, saying the memo was dated months later. Another administration official said it was dated May 2005.
The dispute may come down to how the Bush administration defines torture, and whether it allowed U.S. interrogators to interpret anti-torture laws beyond legal limits.
Perino said the president "had done everything within the corners of the law to make sure that we prevent another attack on this country."
CIA spokesman George Little said the agency sought guidance from the Bush administration and Congress to make sure its program to detain and interrogate terrorism suspects followed U.S. law.
"The program, which has taken account of changes in U.S. law and policy, has produced vital information that has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives," Little said in a statement. "The agency has always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face to face with ruthless terrorists."
Congress has prohibited cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of terrorism suspects. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said several extreme techniques, including water-boarding, were specifically outlawed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NFL, Travis Henry in court battle over drug test
Lawyer Blog News |
2007/10/05 13:51
|
| Broncos running back Travis Henry, who has a four-game substance-abuse suspension on his record from 2005, is battling the NFL in court over a new drug test, one that could lead to a one-year ban. ESPN's Len Pasquarelli says Henry is trying to block the league from testing his "B" sample, claiming that the league isn't allowing Henry's expert to be present for the test. League VP of public relations Greg Aiello confirms to Pasquarelli that the league is in court over the matter but declines -- as required -- to go into detail. Pasquarelli on the circumstances that could lead to a one-year penalty: "Under the two-year policy, which essentially wipes a player's slate clean, Henry was scheduled to rotate out of the substance abuse program on Oct. 1. But his lawsuit to block further testing of his urine sample was filed Sept. 20, indicating that the positive test occurred before Oct. 1."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Woman Told to Ditch Bra to Enter Court
Legal Career News |
2007/10/05 12:54
|
| Security guards refused to allow a woman into a federal courthouse until she removed a bra that triggered a metal detector. Lori Plato said she and her husband, Owen Plato, were stunned when U.S. Marshals Service employees asked her to remove her bra after the underwire supports set off the alarm. "I asked if I could go into the bathroom because they didn't have a privacy screen and no women security officers were available," Plato said Wednesday. "They said, 'No.' "I wasn't carrying a shank in my bra. If it's so dangerous, why did they give it back and let me put it on?" Patrick McDonald, the U.S. Marshal in Boise, said appropriate security protocols were followed in the Sept. 20 matter, and guards suggested she simply remove the bra in her car outside, or find a restaurant bathroom. "She's inflating it," McDonald said. "All of a sudden she just took it off. It wasn't anything we wanted to happen and it wasn't anything we asked for her to do. She did it so fast." Plato, of Bonners Ferry, said she was parked on a busy street and wasn't familiar with downtown Coeur d'Alene businesses. So her husband held up his coat to shield her from the rest of the people in the courthouse lobby while she removed her bra underneath her shirt. Generally, McDonald said, undergarments aren't considered a danger to security. "I don't think they're considered a weapon, really, the last time I looked," he said. He declined to discuss other ways the federal courthouse guards could have screened Plato for weapons. Plato wants the Marshals Service to apologize and stop forcing women to disrobe. "It was very humiliating," her husband, Owen Plato, said. "They could have handled it with a much more professional attitude." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recent Lawyer News Updates |
|
|
Lawyer News RSS
