Dismissal, Sanctions Upheld in Ex-Allen & Overy Lawyer's Sexual Harassment Suit Against Firm
The lawsuit brought by Deidre Holmes Clark, once a senior attorney at the firm's Moscow office, was thrown out after she repeatedly refused to submit to a court-ordered psychological exam.
March 09, 2018 at 11:29 AM
4 minute read
A state appeals court ruled Thursday that a former Allen & Overy lawyer who leveled a $35 million lawsuit at the firm for sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge and emotional distress properly had her suit dismissed after she refused to submit to a court-ordered psychological exam.
In addition, Deidre Holmes Clark, once a senior attorney at the international firm, was rightfully sanctioned by the trial court for violating its sealing orders when she maliciously posted about the case on social media in an attempt to harass or injure Allen & Overy, a unanimous Appellate Division, First Department, panel decided.
The ruling was the latest chapter in a legal battle between Clark and her former firm that has spanned two continents and nine years. It began in 2009 when Clark, who'd been working in Allen & Overy's Moscow office, sued the Magic Circle law firm in London, alleging that she'd been fired improperly. That suit was thrown out on jurisdictional grounds, but Clark, a Columbia Law School graduate and member of the New York bar, brought a new lawsuit in 2011 in Manhattan Supreme Court.
The thrust of that nine-count suit, in which she represented herself, was that she was harassed and ultimately fired after a drunken sexual encounter with Tony Humphrey, a former Moscow partner at Allen & Overy. Moreover, she claimed that Allen & Overy had created a pretext for her firing, pointing to her publishing of a serialized, steamy e-novel in Moscow under her law practice name.
The novel, according to news reports, was titled “Expat” and included tales of drug taking, binge drinking and sex shows.
Some counts of the lawsuit were thrown out, but it continued for years, and Clark demanded $15 million alone for intentional infliction of emotional distress. She said her distress had manifested itself through “extreme mental and physical anguish,” according to court documents. And in deposition testimony, she testified that she suffered from eczema, hair pulling, anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts.
Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Louis York determined in 2014 that Clark had made her mental state a matter of controversy and granted Allen & Overy's request that Clark be examined by a psychiatrist.
In August 2016, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Kathryn Freed ruled on various motions, including granting Allen & Overy's motions to dismiss Clark's complaint pursuant to CPLR 3126 and for sanctions. Freed also, according to the panel, ordered Clark to pay $5,000 to the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1(a) and to pay Allen & Overy its costs and attorney fees incurred in bringing the sanctions motion.
On Thursday, the panel, comprised of Justices John Sweeny, Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, Angela Mazzarelli, Jeffrey Oing and Peter Moulton, affirmed Freed's rulings. The justices pointed to Clark's actions in repeatedly refusing to comply with a court order to undergo the psychiatric examination ordered in 2014.
Clark has “continued to refuse to schedule or sit for the IME [independent medical examination],” the panel wrote. The justices added that “on November 11, 2015, plaintiff appeared at the examiner's office. However, she refused to take the microphone to be audiotaped, and she informed the examiner that she would go to the police and charge him with false imprisonment and assault if he proceeded with the examination without her consent.”
“Under the circumstances,” wrote the panel, “the [trial] court properly dismissed the complaint for noncompliance pursuant to CPLR 3126.”
The panel added that the financial sanctions imposed on Clark were proper because she “violated the court's sealing orders by posting about the case to her social media networks” and “falsely represented that she had not refused to sit for the IME and that discovery had been waived.”
Clark could not be reached for comment. Nor could Rachel Fischer, a Proskauer Rose associate in New York who represented Allen & Overy.
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 AllThe American Disabilities Act, Sovereign Immunity and Individual Liability
7 minute read'The Court Will Take Action': Judge Upbraids Combative Rudy Giuliani During Outburst at Hearing
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession 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