Winston & Strawn Loses SCOTUS Bid to Stop Ex-Partner's Discrimination Lawsuit
A California state appeals court last year set aside an arbitration provision in the firm's employment contract, a ruling the firm challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court.
October 07, 2019 at 09:45 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
Winston & Strawn. Courtesy photo.
Winston & Strawn on Monday lost its bid in the U.S. Supreme Court to stop a California state ruling that allowed a former partner to bring discrimination and retaliation claims in court against the law firm.
The former San Francisco-based partner, Constance Ramos, has resisted Winston & Strawn's push to keep her claims from being aired in public court. A California state appeals court last year set aside an arbitration provision in the firm's employment contract, a ruling the firm challenged in the high court.
Ramos has alleged she was unfairly passed over for work and effectively forced out of the law firm. Ramos now works at her own firm, Akira IP. Winston & Strawn's petition arrived at the high court at a time when more Big Law firms are facing claims of discrimination from female lawyers.
Business advocates and one major firm, Ropes & Gray, had filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review Winston & Strawn's petition.
"Today, it is common for law firms to experience regular fluctuations in their partnership ranks," Ropes & Gray partner Douglas Hallward-Driemeier wrote in the amicus brief. "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."
Winston & Strawn, represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, had pitched the case as a new chance for the justices to confront issues that "are tremendously consequential to employers with a California presence."
Central to the petition was the 2000 California state court decision in Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, which found an arbitration agreement unenforceable because it didn't meet certain conditions.
Orrick partner E. Joshua Rosenkranz, lead counsel for Winston & Strawn, told the Supreme Court that Ramos' win "is emblematic of California courts' adherence to the overtly arbitration-disfavoring rules" that were established in the Armendariz decision.
Ramos' lawyer, Karla Gilbride of Public Justice, told the justices that Ramos would have won her challenge irrespective of the Armendariz ruling.
Gilbride, who had urged the justices to uphold Ramos' California state court win, said Winston & Strawn's "overly harsh" terms in the firm's partnership agreement drove the California state ruling against the law firm.
The scope of the Winston & Strawn arbitration provision, Gilbride argued, "would make it impossible for the arbitrators to award Ramos back pay, front pay, reinstatement or punitive damages—essentially every form of relief she sought in her complaint for employment discrimination and retaliation."
Read more:
DLA Piper Partner Accused of Sexual Assault in EEOC Claim, Open Letter
Winston & Strawn Protests Ex-Partner's 'Firm Always Wins' Characterization
Ex-Winston Partner, Suing Firm, Asks Justices to Uphold a Ruling Against Arbitration
Big Law Touts Arbitration in Winston & Strawn's SCOTUS Case Against Ex-Partner
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 All
Is 1st Circuit the New Center for Trump Policy Challenges?
State Appeals Court Revives BraunHagey Lawsuit Alleging $4.2M Unlawful Wire to China
3 minute read
Fight Over Amicus-Funding Disclosure Surfaces in Google Play Appeal
How We Won: BraunHagey’s $56M Trademark Win Over Molson Coors Upheld by 9th Circuit
8 minute readTrending Stories
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
