In Fight Over Arbitration with Ex-Partner, Winston & Strawn Gets Big Law Backing at SCOTUS
Ropes & Gray on Monday filed an amicus brief backing Winston & Strawn, in its fight at the U.S. Supreme Court to compel Constance Ramos, a former partner in California, to arbitrate claims of gender discrimination. The California Court of Appeal sided with Ramos in keeping the dispute in court.
June 17, 2019 at 04:57 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Ropes & Gray on Monday became the first big law firm to weigh in on a case before the U.S. Supreme Court challenging a California court ruling that invalidated a former Winston & Strawn partner's employee-arbitration agreement.
Douglas Hallward-Driemeier, head of Ropes & Gray's appellate and Supreme Court practice, wrote in an amicus brief—filed in support of Winston & Strawn—that his firm's lawyers “handle highly confidential attorney-client privileged information and highly confidential business information every day. The California Court of Appeal's decision impedes the firm's ability to rely on confidential arbitrations to protect this sensitive information from public disclosure.”
Hallward-Driemeier was referring to Ramos v. Winston & Strawn, a 2018 decision by the California Court of Appeal that sided with Constance Ramos, an experienced litigator and patent practitioner who left the firm and sued claiming discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination and anti-fair-pay practices.
Ramos alleged in her California state court complaint she was effectively forced out of Winston & Strawn. Her case is one of several in recent years filed by associates or partners alleging discriminatory employment practices against women at big law firms.
Winston & Strawn moved to compel arbitration, but the Court of Appeal, citing one of its own precedents from 2000, found the arbitration agreement “unconscionable.” The court, ruling in Ramos's favor last year, concluded provisions in the agreement requiring Ramos to pay her own legal fees and to share the cost of arbitration were both unlawful.
The firm took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court with a cert petition filed in May by E. Joshua Rosenkranz, co-head of the Supreme Court practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. The petition asserts that the California appeal court's ruling ignored the high court's 2011 decision in AT&T v. Concepcion, which solidified the force of arbitration agreements.
“The broader context is the California judiciary's persistent defiance of this court's clear rulings on arbitration,” Rosenkranz wrote in the brief.
The Ropes & Gray brief underscored the importance of arbitration agreements, especially at law firms.
“Today, it is common for law firms to experience regular fluctuations in their partnership ranks,” Hallward-Driemeier wrote. “As a result, it has become increasingly important for law firms to be able to quickly and efficiently resolve internal disputes in a way that protects confidential information and minimizes disruptions to client service.”
Hallward-Driemeier argued that “public litigation of disputes between law firm partners also carries the unique and ever-present risk of disclosing client secrets, which lawyers have a paramount ethical obligation to protect.” He added: “Confidential arbitration offers a means of shielding client and firm confidential information, and avoiding the immeasurable harm that may flow from public disputes—particularly disputes that center on specific client relationships, like the complaint that respondent filed here.”
Karla Ann Gilbride, senior attorney at Public Justice, is representing Ramos in the Supreme Court litigation.
Ropes & Gray's amicus brief is posted below:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
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 AllHow a Kirkland Partner Relied on 2 Lean Teams During Simultaneous Weeklong Arbitrations on Either Coast
Selendy Gay Elsberg's Rajat Rana Aims to Bring Some Trial Lawyer Approaches to Investment Treaty Arbitration
Litigator of the Week: King & Spalding Wins $1B-Plus Construction Arbitration Award for Colombian Oil Refinery
International Arbitration Expert by Day. Thriller Author by Flight.
Trending Stories
- 1Authenticating Electronic Signatures
- 2'Fulfilled Her Purpose on the Court': Presiding Judge M. Yvette Miller Is 'Ready for a New Challenge'
- 3Litigation Leaders: Greenspoon Marder’s Beth-Ann Krimsky on What Makes Her Team ‘Prepared, Compassionate and Wicked Smart’
- 4A Look Back at High-Profile Hires in Big Law From Federal Government
- 5Grabbing Market Share From Rivals, Law Firms Ramped Up Group Lateral Hires
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