After Munger Tolles's #MeToo Snafu, Orrick Touts End of Arbitration Agreements
After Munger, Tolles & Olson apologized over the weekend for asking summer associates to submit to mandatory arbitration, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe sought to differentiate itself from the Big Law masses.
March 26, 2018 at 06:52 PM
2 minute read
After Munger, Tolles & Olson announced over the weekend that it would no longer require any of its employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe quickly followed suit late Monday afternoon.
“Orrick has decided that we will no longer require any employees, including associates, to sign any arbitration agreements,” the firm said in a statement to The American Lawyer that Orrick also tweeted out.
The focus on mandatory arbitration clauses in Big Law began on March 24 when Ian Samuel, a former Jones Day associate and current lecturer at Harvard Law School, took to Twitter to reveal a copy of Munger Tolles' proposed arbitration agreement for its summer associates.
The leaked documents require Munger Tolles' summer associates to arbitrate all employment-related claims, including those that fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 such as sexual harassment. After the agreement made its rounds on social media, the firm issued a statement retracting its position and announcing the elimination of such arbitration provisions.
That announcement by Munger Tolles and the conversation around it prompted Orrick to accelerate a review of its use of mandatory arbitration, according to the Am Law 100 firm.
“We have been reviewing our sexual harassment policies generally in response to the #MeToo conversation and as part of our commitment to being a best place to work and attracting the best talent,” the firm said in its statement.
Orrick said its new policy will allow its employees, including associates, to decide whether or not to pursue arbitration should a workplace issue arise.
“Because we believe arbitration often can be advantageous to the employee, if an employee brings a claim, we will offer her or him the option of opting into arbitration at that time,” the firm said in its statement.
Orrick's new policy will apply retroactively to all employees and associates but does not apply to partners, the firm added. Orrick is currently representing Winston & Strawn in a dispute with former partner Constance Ramos, who earlier this year saw her gender bias case against the firm be sent to arbitration.
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 All
Newly Formed DEI Practices Expect Heightened Demand During Trump Administration
Many Lawyers Are Reeling From Election Results, but Leaders Are Staying Mum
6 minute read
Davis Polk Launches European Restructuring Practice, Hires Sidley Duo in London
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Obtaining Reimbursement from Medicaid
- 2NY Requiring Lawyers to Report Out-of-State Admissions, Public Discipline
- 3Man Hits Cow in Case That Tests 'Unrealistic Delivery Times'
- 4DC Judge, Applying 'Loper Bright,' Dismisses Complaint in Medicare Drug-Classification Dispute
- 5Environmental Law in Trump’s Second Term
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
