What Does 'Weinstein Effect' Mean for Law Firms Facing Gender Discrimination Claims?
While Big Law has avoided being rocked by sexual misconduct claims in recent months, the steady stream of revelations in other industries has heightened the risks associated with a potential claim against a law firm.
December 07, 2017 at 06:49 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
At a time when a wave of sexual harassment and misconduct claims against high-profile men has roiled politics, the media and a variety of industries, law firms are suddenly contending with the reputational and legal risks associated with a potential claim of sexual misconduct or gender discrimination.
Even the handling of legal work for a man accused of sexual misconduct in this environment of heightened awareness can have a negative impact on a firm. Prominent lawyers and large law firms have yet to become direct targets of lawsuits alleging sexual harassment, but a law firm facing claims of any kind of gender discrimination could be at risk.
This means firms under scrutiny for gender discrimination based on pay equity or promotion may consider settling early if they fear there's a chance that harassment allegations would come to light during the course of litigation, according to lawyers who have either litigated employment claims against law firms or study the legal profession.
“I don't counsel corporate clients, so I don't know firsthand that they're worried, but they damn well better be because there are consequences,” said Lori Andrus of Andrus Anderson, a lead lawyer for a former Steptoe & Johnson LLP associate embroiled in litigation accusing that firm of gender discrimination involving pay disparities.
The widespread public discussion surrounding harassment issues, and developments like the “#MeToo” movement in social media, have created an environment in which women who step forward with accusations of misconduct will be believed in a way they often haven't been in the past, said Deborah Rhode, director of the Center on the Legal Profession at Stanford Law School.
“I think the current climate is going to empower more women to come forward because they see there are fewer professional [consequences],” Rhode said. “People are being believed and they aren't being dismissed as whiners who can't make it on the merits.”
The legal industry is not immune to issues related to sexual harassment, although complaints do not arise as much there as in some other sectors, such as pharmaceutical sales and the hospitality industry, according to employment lawyers.
This could be in part a result of the law firm world having taken steps to clean up its act on the sexual harassment front earlier than some other industries, Rhode said. She pointed to a high-profile sexual harassment lawsuit from the 1990s in which Baker McKenzie was hit with a $3.8 million judgment after a former secretary at the firm alleged she was groped by a former partner. (The partner, Martin Greenstein, left Baker McKenzie in 1993 and has since run his own boutique intellectual property firm, according to his profile on LinkedIn.)
“My own sense is that one reason you haven't seen lawyers figuring so prominently in the lists of men behaving badly is that they got a wake-up call somewhat earlier,” Rhode said.
But large law firms have suffered from pay and promotion disparities between men and women lawyers. And several firms, including the former Chadbourne & Parke, Proskauer Rose and Winston & Strawn, currently face gender discrimination lawsuits alleging unequal pay.
And not all firms come out looking squeaky clean on the sexual harassment front. Some of those gender bias cases also make harassment claims. A Jane Doe complaint against Proskauer, for instance, references comments that senior partners allegedly made about Doe's appearance. But the cases have stopped short of making the egregious types of sexual misconduct claims that have been leveled against such figures as film producer Harvey Weinstein and former NBC television personality Matt Lauer.
Even putting aside the harassment allegations, the law firm complaints tend to describe a male-dominated atmosphere, which the plaintiffs allege contributed to lower pay and fewer promotion and business generation opportunities for women lawyers.
Harassment and pay equity are on the surface distinct issues, but they often arise from a similar underlying environment, Andrus said.
“The suppression of women's wages is tied to the suppression of women's power, and I think that's true in the legal world,” said Andrus. “We are only 5 percent of managing partners and that number hasn't moved in a decade.”
There's also a question of a possible spillover effect: whether the recent stream of public, high-profile harassment accusations in other industries could affect law firms that face gender discrimination claims now or at some point in the future.
David Sanford of Sanford Heisler Sharp, who represents current and former women partners in the Chadbourne and Proskauer lawsuits but also handles many employment disputes outside of court, said he's seen signs in recent weeks that employers of different stripes might be more interested now in striking global settlements that would resolve both a pay equity dispute and a harassment claim. So in his view, the current public mood surrounding harassment issues is most likely to affect a pay equity case if it also includes some sort of harassment claim.
“I don't think there's necessarily spillover impact on [pay discrimination cases] unless it turns out there are instances of sexual harassment claims to be brought,” he said.
Rhode said she'll be watching the pending gender bias suits in the law firm world and elsewhere to see whether they move more quickly toward a settlement now, as opposed to how they might have been handled before the cascade of sexual misconduct revelations.
“I think this is not a good time to be a defendant in a case involving gender discrimination,” she said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllA Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
4 minute read'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute readLife, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Customers: Developments on ‘Conquesting’ from the Ninth Circuit
8 minute readLegal Departments Gripe About Outside Counsel but Rarely Talk to Them
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250