-
OBABL Links & Resources
Stand Up!
Feb
1
From The ABAJournal:
A former staff attorney of Covington & Burling can proceed with her federal discrimination claim over the law firm’s policy of assigning work, based on a disparate impact theory.
However, U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton found that Yolanda Young had waited too long to bring a similar claim that the firm’s refusal to promote her to an associate position also was discriminatory, reports the Blog of Legal Times.
Walton OK’d the work-assignment claim because it involves a recurring issue that is revisited at annual reviews each year, the law blog explains. Young argues that the firm’s policies have a disparate impact because, she alleges, the staff attorney group is disproportionately black.
Says Yolanda Young’s attorney:
“My client is pleased to be able to pursue the disparate impact claim because it is not every day that a court allows that kind of claim to move forward,” attorney Latif Doman, who is representing Young, tells the BLT. “As we move forward with discovery, it will be clear that African-American staff attorneys are put through a similar system as white associates but are not being judged in the same manner.”
Jan
28
From The National Law Journal:
Kamisha Menns, a black woman born in Jamaica, says in the complaint, filed in D.C. Superior Court on Wednesday, that Howrey violated the D.C. Human Rights Act by retaliating against her, creating a hostile work environment, and inflicting emotional distress, both intentionally and negligently. Menns has asked for $30 million.
According the complaint, Menns was heavily recruited by Howrey only to be subjected to discriminatory treatment once staffed in their Brussels office.
At some point after moving to Brussels, Menns says in her complaint, she began being removed from projects despite receiving compliments on her work from several partners. She says her workplace was shifted to a different floor from that of other lawyers. When she reached out to the office’s managing partner, Trevor Soames, the complaint alleges, Menns was told “that because she was an ‘impressive woman’ Ms. Menns made Howrey’s white employees feel uncomfortable.” The complaint alleges that Soames also told her that because she was the first black associate to work in the office, the office staff’s treatment of her might be influenced by the fact that “they had never before been forced to be in a ’subordinate position’ to a black person.”
The complaint goes on to allege that the situation only got worse when she reached out to firm leaders, including the Washington-based diversity committee and CEO Robert Ruyak. In a June 2, 2009, meeting, a day after Menns sent an e-mail to Ruyak and eight members of the diversity committee outlining the allegedly discriminatory treatment, Menns was fired.
Dec
15
Following Settlement Conference, Former Clifford Chance Associate Drops Race Discrimination Lawsuit
Filed Under Stand Up! • Leave a Comment
In March 2008, New York attorney, Caroline Memnon, filed a discrimination lawsuit against Clifford Chance and Sullivan & Worcester LLP. She sued Clifford Chance for blacklisting her after she agreed to leave in 2002 and failing to give her a contracted-for letter of recommendation. According to her complaint, Big Law refused to employ her for nearly six years despite graduating at the top of her class at Columbia Law School, working for two years in one of the largest corporate shops in the world, and speaking four languages. In the same suit, she sued S&W for acquiescing to Clifford Chance’s blacklisting by firing her after only six weeks of employment. Like other discrimination victims, she and her claims were mocked in comments on Above The Law and The WSJ Blog, but she was not deterred. Is it possible that she has now been vindicated––albeit, confidentially?
From Employment Law 360 (Subscription Required):
In a concise order filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, Judge Harold Baer asked the clerk to remove the case from the court’s docket, announcing that plaintiff Caroline Memnon and S&W had agreed to a dismissal of all claims.
Charges against Clifford Chance US LLP, the other named defendant in the suit, are also no longer pending.
While counsel—Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Proskauer Rose LLP and Doman Davis LLP represented S&W, Clifford Chance and Memnon respectively—remain mum, according to Law360, after the court rejected some of the law firms’ summary-judgment arguments, a settlement conference was scheduled for November 25th. Days after that conference and only three weeks before trial, Memnon voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit. Hmmm…wonder if she’ll be joining Colin Powell and Aaron Charney at 220 West 93.
Full disclosure: Latif Doman is also representing OBABL founder, Yolanda Young, in her discrimination lawsuit against Covington & Burling LLP. His firm has developed a niche practice of advising and representing attorneys on their rights with regard to employment at large law firms.
Aug
24
Yolanda Young has amended her complaint against her former law firm, Covington & Burling LLP to include a disparate claim.
YoungvCovington-amended-complaint:
Through its pattern and practice, Defendant, Covington & Burling LLP, systematically relegates its black attorneys to its lowest rung of practicing attorneys––the position of staff attorney. Firm policy bans the promotion of staff attorneys to the position of associate and, ultimately, to partner. This prohibition adversely impacts Defendant’s black attorneys by consigning their majority to earning less money, performing less challenging work, and enjoying less opportunity for professional growth than Defendant’s nonblack attorneys.
If you believe that law firm hiring, retention and promotion practices should be closely examined, click here to help.
In the complaint Young uses data gathered from Covington’s website, the National Association of Law Placement (“NALP”), and U.S. News & World Report to demonstrate that one in two black attorneys at Covington is a staff attorney while only one in fifteen white attorneys is, making a black attorney 7.5 times more likely than a white attorney to be assigned to a staff attorney position.
YoungvCovington-AttorneyCharts.
Additionally, Young points out that while Covington uses a combination of law school grades, journal membership, and clerkship experience to determine the assignment of its attorneys, many of their partners––who decide how an attorney should be assigned––lack such credentials, but presumably are able to perform adequately at partner-level.
Young also asserts that black practicing attorneys, as a group, typically graduated from higher ranked law schools than their white colleagues and that black staff attorneys more often than their white counterparts attended law schools from which Covington’s partners, counsel, and associates graduated.
“The auto, banking and retail industries have dramatically improved their diversity after being brought to task by the public through campaigns such as the Rainbow/Push Wall Street Project and the Tom Joyner Radio CompUSA crusade. Large law firms, however, who generate their revenue from publicly traded companies that have made a diversity turnaround, have not addressed their own lack of diversity––despite having an ethical obligation to do so,” said Young’s attorney Latif Doman, Esq. of Doman Davis.
Click here to learn how you can help.
Get case updates by joining OBABL on twitter and facebook.
Jul
27
Eastman Kodak will pay between $1,000 and $75,000 to over 3000 current and former employees. What’s left of the $21.4 million dollar settlement will be shared among attorneys.
From WaPo via AP:
The settlement comes a decade after Kodak paid $10 million in back wages and granted $3 million in annual raises to correct disparities in pay and promotions for black and female workers in some departments dating to 1996.
Plaintiffs in the 2004 lawsuit charged that the 1999 program did nothing to correct Kodak’s discriminatory practices and accused the company of maintaining “a work environment that is hostile to its African American employees.”
Plaintiffs said that in addition to being passed over for promotions, they were subject to racist comments from co-workers and supervisors and graffiti on bathroom walls, lockers and delivery trucks.
Jun
24
A Report Claims Of 3,500 Professional Grades Positions at World Bank, Only 4 Held by African Americans
Filed Under Stand Up! • Leave a Comment
Wamara Mwine has an interesting article in The Examiner regarding a recent report of underrepresentation of African Americans at the World Bank.
A recent report by the Government Accountability Project says only four African Americans work in the World Bank’s 3,500 professional grade positions. The World Bank would not officially confirm this figure. The 53-page report cites a number of discrimination cases that went to the World Bank’s Tribunal dating back 30 years. While the bank is an international organization flush with different cultures, the GAP report says African Americans are consistently passed over for promotion and seemingly non-existent in some departments.
Why might such a disparity exist?
A current African World Bank employee says, “there are repeated roadblocks to applying for positions, to being hired and retained, promoted, and treated fairly on the job.” Another female African American employee who has worked at headquarters and on World Bank mission says, “over the years I have had several Bank staff express to me the thought that perhaps Black Americans “are not interested” in working at the World Bank. Or that none are “qualified.” But white Americans are always “more” qualified?”GAP’s International Program Director Bea Davis says there are no incentives for World Bank managers to increase diversity. “Many private companies award bonuses, for example, to directors whose departments meet diversity targets. The bank does not – therefore it’s not surprising the figures don’t change.”
Apr
30
Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that Christine C. Anderson, a black former staff attorney for the 1st Department, which oversees the conduct of attorneys in Manhattan and the Bronx, can proceed with her lawsuit. NewYorkLawJournal
Christine C. Anderson contended that her June 2007 firing was in retaliation for complaints she made to her superiors at the disciplinary committee that at least nine cases had been handled too leniently because the lawyers being investigated were politically connected or were represented by attorneys who had previously worked for the committee (NYLJ, Oct. 30, 2007).
While the judge did throw out Anderson’s claim that she was fired because she was black, the former staff attorney’s “whitewashing” statements were ruled to be in the interest of the public and thus protected by the First Amendment.
Anderson, who was born in Jamaica, also claimed the committee had discriminated against her on the basis of race, color and national origin.
The disciplinary committee operates under the aegis of the Appellate Division, First Department, and Anderson sued the OCA; Thomas J. Cahill, the committee’s chief counsel during the years Anderson was employed there; Sherry K. Cohen, who became deputy chief counsel and Anderson’s supervisor in 2003; and David Spokoney, the 1st Department’s deputy clerk. With the exception of Cahill, who resigned in 2007 after 10 years in the post (NYLJ, July 23, 2007), the other individual defendants remain at their jobs.
The 1st Department’s disciplinary committee polices the conduct of attorneys practicing in Manhattan and the Bronx.
In allowing Anderson to proceed with her retaliation claim, Scheindlin found that her contention that the committee had “whitewashed” as many as nine cases touched upon a subject of public concern and was protected under the First Amendment.
Way to keep ‘em honest, Christine!
Mar
30
Young v. Covington: New Lawyer, More Mud
Filed Under Stand Up! • 7 Comments
Today’s Legal Times updates readers on developments in Young v. Covington. The piece opens with the most recent development in the case:
Latif Doman of Doman Davis, a small litigation and employment discrimination firm with offices in New York and Washington, will take the reins on the case, which has caused a stir in D.C. legal circles.
The article quotes me as saying that it was Mr. Doman’s passion for this issue that ultimately swayed me. This is not entirely true. While Mr. Doman, who is black, is passionate about the issues raised in my lawsuit, he also happens to be extremely smart and accomplished. He has nearly fifteen years of litigation and employment law experience, which has included high profile cases like his representation of Genard Parker in his suit against the singer, Ashanti. I confess to also being impressed with his legal bona fides–University of Pennsylvania Law School (ranked 7th by US News), Law Review, Federal Clerkship (Chief Judge John Garrett Penn), and BigLaw experience–that reassure those that need reassuring.
Mr. Doman’s accomplishments lend themselves to the assumption that he is a very good attorney and deserving of the legal community’s respect. I, on the other hand, had marginal law school grades, difficulty passing the bar and legal experience limited primarily to document review. The question the Legal Times’ article raises is this: Are attorneys with less sterling credentials less deserving of training and a workplace free of discrimination?
As the article points out, my claims against Covington involve the segregation of minority attorneys and the use of racial slurs in the office. Covington admits that derogatory language was used in the office and that staff attorneys are not provided the same benefits and training as other attorneys at the firm and are not included in many firm meetings and events. They then try to make the issue about my grades rather than their firm practices.
From LegalTimes:
In the meantime, Covington seems to be settling on a hardball strategy for dealing with the suit. Last week it released a lengthy response to her complaint, in which it portrayed her as a dilletantish, marginally qualified attorney who never understood the nature of her job.
One of Young’s more incendiary accusations against Covington is that the firm used its staff attorney program to recruit minority lawyers, then systematically denied them the chance to rise into the associate ranks. She published a controversial essay on the topic for the Huffington Post titled “Law Firm Segregation Reminiscent of Jim Crow.”
Covington’s response tries to hammer home the point that staff attorneys were generally less qualified lawyers whose only job was to handle electronic document review. It then proceeds to use Young herself as an example, using an Aug. 14 letter to the EEOC in which the firm first responded to her discrimination claims (pdf).
“Ms. Young is an African-American whose publicly-stated career interests focus on the media; she has published a book, appeared as a ‘talking head’ on TV and written commentary for newspapers and blogs,” the letter states. “Ms. Young graduated from Georgetown University Law Center in 1995. Her average grade was only slightly better than a ‘C,’ well below the threshold level for a Covington associate. She did not pass the bar until 1998, three years after her law school graduation.”
What constitutes being qualified? What’s the better indicator of the kind of lawyer I have the potential to be? Grades or the fact that my writing has been endorsed by some of the world’s most respected publishers: Random House, USA Today, and The Washington Post? Or perhaps it is the fact that I wrote a complaint that Covington was forced to answer.
OBABL has talked about the low bar passage rate for black attorneys, but we haven’t said much about law school grades. GULC is a t-14 school that grades on the curve, so half of the class is always going to be in the bottom half. Is it better to be in the bottom half of a t-14 school or closer to the top at a less expensive, lower ranked school? If going to a top law school only benefits those at the top of the class, should law school promotional material alert students to this fact?
Mar
2
Meet Regina Mullen, who describes herself as a lawyer, mediator, doc reviewer, Japanese legal translator, inhaler of books, music lover and martial artist. She’s been captivated by Yolanda Young’s complaint against Covington & Burling LLP and has taken to the blogosphere.
She’s got the complaint parties’ Avvo Page ratings, links to articles about the case, and her very own analysis. Here’s an excerpt OBABL found particularly interesting. From ReginaMullen:
For those who want to complain about the money question, let’s just put it out there: there’s going to be a “check” written no matter what happens in this case. It’s NOT frivolous and the questions are 1) how much pain does the firm want to endure and 2) to whom do they want to write the “check”?
Of course, “uncomfortable,” is not a straight path to the “sackcloth and ashes” drill. Nobody buys that anymore, anyway.
What they have right now is the ability to control where that check gets spent. Once the case moves forward, they lose that control. It’s simply amazing what can be done with $10 million. So, pain management is certainly something to think about. Here’s a short list:
- The pain of billable time taken away from their clients.
- The pain of at least one client that is sure to look at them differently.
- The pain of having to pay a sibling firm to examine their dirty laundry.
- The pain of having to explain their diversity program’s success yet again at a time when they should be basking in the glory of having supplied the Obama ADministration with a stellar AG.
Covington will definitely want, in terms of crisis management, a few ideas about how to turn this thing to their advantage.
So, what I’d want to do is help the firm consider to what extent there might be truth to the allegations,–not just from a jury’s perspective, but from the perspective of the firm’s mission and goals in a post-Bush legal marketplace. Is there room in their thinking to consider this less “shakedown” and more “opportunity”?
Feb
24
Yolanda Young v. Covington & Burling LLP
Filed Under Stand Up! • 65 Comments
Make no mistake about it, people. THIS. IS. A. GREAT. COUNTRY!
For $120 you can pick up a stone and try to slay Goliath have your day in court.
Read Yolanda Young v. Covington here, but be patient; it’s long–37 pages for the actual complaint and 63 pages of corroborating emails, evaluations, etc.
Here’s an excerpt:
Plaintiff was hired by Covington in February 2005. In January 2006, Plaintiff was awarded a top bonus of $9,000. During her annual review she was told that her work was excellent, that associates and partners enjoyed working with her, and that her diligence and efficiency made her extremely valuable. In March 2006, after being subjected to months of discriminatory and harassing treatment, plaintiff complained about, among other things, being referred to as a dog and later a monkey; being subjected to white staff attorneys’ constant use of racial slurs; having her white colleagues conceal case information from their black case team members; and being systematically discriminated against as a member of the staff attorney group. Immediately thereafter, Covington management set out on a campaign to discredit Plaintiff. At a staff meeting, a partner said that Plaintiff had overreacted in reporting the use of racial slurs. As punishment, Plaintiff was reassigned to an office with no minorities. Covington management further retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting her to increased, unwarranted scrutiny, falsely accusing her of overbilling and commanding her to work off the clock. In February 2007, Plaintiff was given a low bonus of $5,000. Plaintiff was told that she was being targeted for firing. In fact, Plaintiff was terminated on August 14, 2007. When Plaintiff learned that Covington rehired laid off staff attorneys with less seniority and lower billable hours than Plaintiff, she reapplied for her staff attorney position. Covington did not rehire Plaintiff. Subsequently, Plaintiff was contacted by a placement agency hired by Covington to recruit additional staff attorneys. Covington still refuses to rehire Plaintiff.
