Discrimination Did Not Occur at TransPerfect
Questioning the legality of a request received from a law firm client under such circumstances would be the antithesis of providing high-quality professional services to the legal community.
June 24, 2019 at 03:50 PM
3 minute read
The New York Law Journal's May 10, 2019 article (and its headline), concerning a complaint filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against TransPerfect's staffing agency for allegedly engaging in citizenship status discrimination, omits critical facts and falsely suggests that discrimination occurred “at TransPerfect,” when it plainly did not. We write to set the record straight.
The salient facts are straightforward. TransPerfect's client (an Am Law 100 law firm) dismissed two dual citizens whom TransPerfect recruited and placed at the law firm to work as contract attorneys on a limited-duration document review project. The law firm did not provide TransPerfect with any advance notice of its decision, and it is undisputed that TransPerfect had no control over the hiring or removal decision.
After the dual citizens were dismissed without TransPerfect having been consulted, TransPerfect promptly found new placements for those individuals, all the while being well aware they were dual citizens. Given that the dual citizens had just been dismissed from the project, this was the only remedial action TransPerfect could take. Based on the directive received from its law firm client, TransPerfect also sent to a number of potential contract attorneys a single email explaining that a U.S. citizenship requirement existed for the project.
TransPerfect had no reason to know or suspect that the instructions it received were unlawful, given that the applicable statute specifically allows entities to discriminate based on citizenship status if the discrimination is required in order to comply with a law; regulation; executive order; federal, state or local government contract; or determination by the attorney general.
TransPerfect reasonably and appropriately relied on the staffing determinations made by its client, which believed, in good faith, that it was complying with the data access restrictions contained in the International Traffic in Arms Regulation (“ITAR”). Questioning the legality of a request received from a law firm client under such circumstances would be the antithesis of providing high-quality professional services to the legal community.
Moreover, a citizenship-related restriction instituted by a single law firm client, in connection with a single limited-duration document review project, cannot possibly constitute a “pattern or practice” of citizenship status discrimination, which requires a showing that unlawful discrimination “was the company's standard operating procedure–the regular rather than the unusual practice.”
TransPerfect is an international company with offices in more than 90 cities throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia Pacific, Africa and the Middle East. Diversity is the lifeblood of its business, and it does not discriminate based on citizenship status or any other protected characteristic. To the contrary, it is and always has been committed to the highest ethical and legal standards.
TransPerfect is confident that the claims asserted by the DOJ will be dismissed, either via motion practice or at an administrative hearing, and it intends to vigorously challenge all of the allegations asserted against it, which are entirely without merit.
Accordingly, and contrary to the Law Journal's misleading headline, there is no “discrimination at TransPerfect in hiring.”
Alan Dershowitz is special counsel to TransPerfect and Daniel Turinsky, a partner at DLA Piper, is the counsel of record for TransPerfect in the DOJ Action.
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
© 2025 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 AllAttorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
3 minute readLetter to the Editor: Law Journal Used Misleading Photo for Article on Election Observers
1 minute readNYC's Administrative Court's to Publish Some Rulings in the New York Law Journal Is Welcomed. But It Should Go Further
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Ex-Prosecutor Denies on Witness Stand That She Tried to Protect Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
- 2Latham's Lateral Hiring Picks Up Steam, With Firm Adding Simpson Practice Head, Private Equity GC
- 3Legal Restrictions Governing Artificial Intelligence in the Workplace
- 4Failure to Adequately Inform Patients
- 5'FTX' One Year Later: The Impact on Examiner Practice in Bankruptcy Courts
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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