Major Lindsey Settles Suit Against Rival Recruiter MLegal and Former Partner
Major Lindsey sued rival MLegal in Washington's federal trial court, alleging a former partner's move had violated provisions of a noncompete.
November 22, 2019 at 04:58 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The national attorney recruitment firm Major, Lindsey & Africa on Friday said it was dropping a lawsuit alleging a former partner who jumped to rival MLegal Group violated the terms of a noncompete provision in her employment agreement.
Lawyers for MLegal and the former Major Lindsey partner, Lauren Drake, indicated earlier this month the parties reached a settlement that would take effect Friday. Major Lindsey's lawyers at the management-side firm Littler Mendelson filed papers Friday afternoon dismissing the case with prejudice. A hearing had been scheduled for early December.
A representative from Major Lindsey said in a statement that "the parties reached a mutually acceptable resolution." Lawyers for Drake and MLegal, represented by a team from Washington's Fortney Scott, were not immediately reached for comment.
The case was poised to open a window to workplace culture at Major Lindsey. Drake claimed a "hostile, male-dominated work environment" contributed to her decision to leave. Major Lindsey disputed Drake's assertions.
Major Lindsey sued MLegal and Drake in Washington's federal trial court in late October. The complaint alleged Drake's employment at MLegal, an upstart firm in the Washington legal market, violated a noncompete clause. Drake had been a Major Lindsey employee for five years and a partner since July. She left the firm in late September.
California-based MLegal, pressing into Washington, has poached other Major Lindsey recruiters, including Jane Sullivan Roberts, whose husband is the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Major Lindsey's suit accused MLegal of "looking to staff its D.C. office with trained recruiters, including Drake, for purposes of gaining a fast-track competitive advantage in the market without having to undertake the investment of time and resources otherwise required."
Drake's lawyers, in letters to Littler Mendelson, disputed that Drake was violating geographic and other restrictions on her post-Major Lindsey employment.
The feud between the rival recruiters was particularly acrimonious because Drake's lawyers alleged office culture—involving alleged inappropriate behavior by unidentified male employees at Major Lindsey—contributed to her decision to go work for MLegal.
"Despite outward appearances, the venerable legal recruitment firm has largely become a far less professional boys' club, leaving a number of its employees and, in particular, many of its stalwart older female employees feeling dismayed, disenfranchised and increasingly uncomfortable in their work environment," Leslie Silverman of Fortney Scott said in a letter to Major Lindsey's lawyers that was included in court filings.
Major Lindsey's general counsel, Maureen Dry-Wasson, said in an earlier statement that the Major Lindsey first heard any complaint from Drake at the time the firm asked her to honor her noncompete agreement.
"We have a zero tolerance policy and would have investigated any report," Dry-Wasson said in the statement. "As a matter of fairness to all the people who work here, I'm disappointed by the use of this tactic in a matter that is very straightforward."
Littler shareholder Paul Kennedy said in one letter to Drake's lawyers that Major Lindsey "offers a diverse work environment, with multiple females in key leadership positions." Kennedy said the firm "embraces the #MeToo Movement, and is prepared to investigate further the multiple generic allegations you raise."
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 AllHospital Succeeds in Denying Vaccine Religious Accommodation Through 'Undue Hardship' Defense
'A Template' for Religious Accommodation: Attorney Gives Insight to $12M Win Over Employer's COVID-19 Vaccination Policies
Federal Judge Sends Novel Damages Question in Employment Dispute to State Court
5 minute readNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Chiesa Shahinian Bolsters Corporate Practice With 5 From Newark Boutique
- 22 Years After Paul Plevin Merger, Quarles & Brady’s Revenue Up More than 13%
- 3Trade Fixtures In New York Eminent Domain Cases - What Qualifies and How Are They Valued?
- 4Rule of Law: Is Big Law Too Shortsighted?
- 5The Empty Promise of ‘Dubin v. United States’
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