Divulging CKR Managing Partner's 'Kissing' Footage Led to Her Firing, Ex-Staffer Claims
Catherine Acosta claims CKR managing partner Jeffrey Rinde retaliated against her after she informed her assistant that security cameras caught Rinde and the assistant kissing in an elevator.
June 27, 2019 at 02:49 PM
4 minute read
The former top marketing official at beleaguered CKR Law has accused the firm's lawyers of repeatedly making hostile comments about her same-sex relationship, in a new discrimination suit against the firm,
Catherine Acosta also claims the managing partner, Jeffrey Rinde, retaliated against her after she informed her assistant that security cameras caught Rinde and the assistant kissing in an elevator.
Acosta, a former CKR marketing director, said in a suit filed Wednesday in Manhattan Supreme Court against Rinde and the firm that she was fired in January after a series of discriminatory comments by people at the firm.
One male lawyer asked “if she was done with men forever, or if he could do anything to change her mind,” her lawsuit claims, while another lawyer hit on her, commented on her headshot and asked if she had “less professional pictures to share.”
After her same-sex wedding in July, Acosta said, a female partner would continuously sit on “Acosta's desk wearing skirts with the intention to discuss plaintiff Acosta's homosexual lifestyle.” One male partner said he officiated weddings, but not of “that nature,” her suit claims.
Acosta said Rinde, the managing partner, let her work from home starting in October because the comments and actions of the firm's lawyers, as well as her commute from New Jersey, made her anxiety worse.
But after Acosta told her assistant that security footage showed that the assistant had been “kissing” Rinde in an office elevator, Rinde began ignoring Acosta's emails and in November insisted that Acosta start working more hours in the office, her lawsuit claims.
“Acosta reluctantly agreed to increase her time in the office based on defendant Rinde agreeing to provide her with an office sufficiently removed from the attorneys who had previously created the hostile working environment,” Acosta's complaint said. The following day, however, Acosta said she learned that CKR's human resources manager “was openly discussing plaintiff Acosta's disabling medical condition.”
The suit alleges that Acosta told Rinde that her privacy rights were violated and she couldn't work in the office, but said she never got a response from Rinde. When December rolled around, she didn't get a performance review or bonus that others received, and on Jan. 18 she was fired, “allegedly due to her inability to work in the New York City office,” the suit said.
To add insult to injury, Acosta claims, her assistant, the one allegedly seen kissing Rinde, was promoted to fill her position “and, shortly thereafter, permitted … to work from home.”
The suit marks more unfavorable publicity for CKR, which has seen a series of lawyer exits after it struggled to pay partner draws.
ALM reported earlier this year that many partners weren't paid their draws for several months or weren't paid the amounts they were owed under their contracts. Dozens of lawyers appear to have left the firm, including a bankruptcy team described by sources as a key part of the firm's business. CKR has insisted that its financial situation won't be hurt by the departures and has said its cash flow situation is improving.
Acosta's suit includes claims under the New York City Human Rights Law for a hostile work environment and failure to accommodate a disability. She seeks compensatory and punitive damages but her lawsuit did not provide a dollar amount.
Rinde and other senior partners at his firm did not respond to a comment request about the lawsuit.
Peter Heck, Acosta's lawyer at the firm of Niedweske Barber, also did not respond to inquiries.
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 AllNot a Shield, but a Weapon? Blue Cross Accused of Antitrust Practices
2 minute readUber Not Responsible for Turning Over Information on 'Dangerous Riders' to Competitor, Judge Finds
5 minute readBallooning Workloads, Dearth of Advancement Opportunities Prime In-House Attorneys to Pull Exit Hatch
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 2US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 3Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
- 4McCormick Consolidates Two Tesla Chancery Cases
- 5Amazon, SpaceX Press Constitutional Challenges to NLRB at 5th Circuit
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