Monday, August 31, 2009
Deadline for applying for federal judge extended
Sen. Amy Klobuchar has extended the deadline for applying for the vacancy on the U.S. District Court to Friday, Sept. 18. All other information about the application process is the same and is available here.
The final chapters of part three of Equal
12. Time to Settle
The case settled in the spring of 1977. The press coverage said that Sullivan & Cromwell had been “brought to its knees.” The firm agreed to supervision by Rabb of its recruiting, interviewing, payment and treatment of women. The firm also paid $30,000 in legal fees, $2,000 of which went to Blank for her own work. A case against Rogers & Wells settled for $40,000 in fees and a hiring quota.
Blank and her classmates had brought 10 complaints to the NYC Commission on Human Rights, and five led to settlements.
Seven years later the issue of whether law firms were bound by discrimination laws in partnership decisions would reach the Supreme Court. At that time, Sullivan & Cromwell would have 75 partners and one woman.
13. The Chief Justice's Second Draft
The issue of law firm discrimination in partnership opportunities was back before the Supreme Court in the 1980s against King & Spaulding of Atlanta, Georgia. One of its senior attorneys was Griffin Bell, a former federal judge and former attorney general of the U.S.
Betsy Hirshon was only the second woman ever hired by the firm. The first woman was hired in 1944 and never made partner. King passed Hirshon over for partner and forced her to leave after 7 years.
The firm argued not only that Title VII did not cover partnerships but the First Amendment granted law partners freedom of association and expression. The firm prevailed in District Court and before a three-judge panel in the court of appeals. It was supported by the U.S. Attorney general.
But then came the bathing suit contest, with the prize to a summer intern with “the body we'd like to see more of.” The Wall Street Journal picked up the story.
The justices voted in conference unanimously against the law firm and Chief Justice Warren Burger took the opinion for himself. (In 1971 he had delivered a letter of resignation to the White House over the issue of appointing a woman to the Supreme Court.)
Burger angered the court by circulating an opinion suggesting that partners might not be employees and thus exempt from Title VII. He suggested that Hirshon's rights would be limited to those available by contract.
The rest of the court rose up. Justice Brennan circulated a draft opinion attacking the “novel theory” that petitioners must prove a common-law contract to receive the rights afforded by federal law.
Burger capitulated. He discussed contract rights but conceded in a footnote they did not apply. But he did overrule the lower courts. George Will wrote in the Washington Post that the opinion said to King & Spaulding, “give me a break.”
The case settled in the spring of 1977. The press coverage said that Sullivan & Cromwell had been “brought to its knees.” The firm agreed to supervision by Rabb of its recruiting, interviewing, payment and treatment of women. The firm also paid $30,000 in legal fees, $2,000 of which went to Blank for her own work. A case against Rogers & Wells settled for $40,000 in fees and a hiring quota.
Blank and her classmates had brought 10 complaints to the NYC Commission on Human Rights, and five led to settlements.
Seven years later the issue of whether law firms were bound by discrimination laws in partnership decisions would reach the Supreme Court. At that time, Sullivan & Cromwell would have 75 partners and one woman.
13. The Chief Justice's Second Draft
The issue of law firm discrimination in partnership opportunities was back before the Supreme Court in the 1980s against King & Spaulding of Atlanta, Georgia. One of its senior attorneys was Griffin Bell, a former federal judge and former attorney general of the U.S.
Betsy Hirshon was only the second woman ever hired by the firm. The first woman was hired in 1944 and never made partner. King passed Hirshon over for partner and forced her to leave after 7 years.
The firm argued not only that Title VII did not cover partnerships but the First Amendment granted law partners freedom of association and expression. The firm prevailed in District Court and before a three-judge panel in the court of appeals. It was supported by the U.S. Attorney general.
But then came the bathing suit contest, with the prize to a summer intern with “the body we'd like to see more of.” The Wall Street Journal picked up the story.
The justices voted in conference unanimously against the law firm and Chief Justice Warren Burger took the opinion for himself. (In 1971 he had delivered a letter of resignation to the White House over the issue of appointing a woman to the Supreme Court.)
Burger angered the court by circulating an opinion suggesting that partners might not be employees and thus exempt from Title VII. He suggested that Hirshon's rights would be limited to those available by contract.
The rest of the court rose up. Justice Brennan circulated a draft opinion attacking the “novel theory” that petitioners must prove a common-law contract to receive the rights afforded by federal law.
Burger capitulated. He discussed contract rights but conceded in a footnote they did not apply. But he did overrule the lower courts. George Will wrote in the Washington Post that the opinion said to King & Spaulding, “give me a break.”
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Minnesota Lynx Event
The Professional Development committee and the Public Policy committee of Minnesota Women Lawyers are hosting an event at the Minnesota Lynx game on Wednesday, September 9.The event is not limited to women who are lawyers--anyone is welcome. The game starts at 7 pm and is being played at the Target Center. The cost is $35 per person, and a portion of the proceeds will go to Civil Society's Human Trafficking Program. MWL is also hosting girls from the YWCA at the game.
Registration can be done here. Check out the Lynx's Wikipedia Site for more background on the team. They play the Detroit Shock that night--perhaps an apt name for when they are Detroit Shocked by what is sure to be the Lynx's awesome playing.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Chapter 11 of 'Equal'
11.A Young Woman Takes an Old Wall Street Firm to Court
Harriet Rabb represented Diane Blank and other women against Sullivan & Cromwell. By chance, the case was assigned to Constance Baker Motley, a civil rights lawyer and the only woman judge in the Southern District of New York, and a descendant of slaves. The defense pressured Motley to recuse.
Blank's deposition revealed a weakness in her case: She could not identify a male law student hired at Sullivan & Cromwell whose qualifications she could match. She did not seem to recognize the problem.
The next issue was class certification. Motley called a conference at which she decided to reverse her earlier decision giving the defense five more weeks to argue against class certification. She certified the class, which then required the defendants to respond to discovery. The defendants wanted to avoid class certification by arguing that the law firm's discrimination, if any, was not ongoing and that Blank's EEOC action was untimely.
The defense, whose litigation tactics struck Motley as unseemly, responded by not only asking Motley to remove herself but also going directly to the Court of Appeals asking for a reversal on the class certification. Motley did not hide from her background as a lawyer for the NAACP but refused to recuse, and was upheld by the appellate court.
Blank ultimately was unable to persuade Motley to order the defense to disclose data about its partnership practices. The firm argued that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of association and due process trumped Title VII and protected partnerships. Upon rehearing, the EEOC stepped in on Blank's side. Motley then decided that she did not have to decide whether the firm had a constitutional right to discriminate in its partnership practices, but could be required to provide information tending to show an illegal pattern in the hiring of associates. “Here was precisely the ruling that Sullivan & Cromwell had been dreading.” Settlement talks ensued.
Harriet Rabb represented Diane Blank and other women against Sullivan & Cromwell. By chance, the case was assigned to Constance Baker Motley, a civil rights lawyer and the only woman judge in the Southern District of New York, and a descendant of slaves. The defense pressured Motley to recuse.
Blank's deposition revealed a weakness in her case: She could not identify a male law student hired at Sullivan & Cromwell whose qualifications she could match. She did not seem to recognize the problem.
The next issue was class certification. Motley called a conference at which she decided to reverse her earlier decision giving the defense five more weeks to argue against class certification. She certified the class, which then required the defendants to respond to discovery. The defendants wanted to avoid class certification by arguing that the law firm's discrimination, if any, was not ongoing and that Blank's EEOC action was untimely.
The defense, whose litigation tactics struck Motley as unseemly, responded by not only asking Motley to remove herself but also going directly to the Court of Appeals asking for a reversal on the class certification. Motley did not hide from her background as a lawyer for the NAACP but refused to recuse, and was upheld by the appellate court.
Blank ultimately was unable to persuade Motley to order the defense to disclose data about its partnership practices. The firm argued that the constitutional guarantees of freedom of association and due process trumped Title VII and protected partnerships. Upon rehearing, the EEOC stepped in on Blank's side. Motley then decided that she did not have to decide whether the firm had a constitutional right to discriminate in its partnership practices, but could be required to provide information tending to show an illegal pattern in the hiring of associates. “Here was precisely the ruling that Sullivan & Cromwell had been dreading.” Settlement talks ensued.
Monday, August 24, 2009
On-line magazine for women litigators
I've just run across an on-line magazine called "Sue Magazine: For Women in Litigation." I don't have a subscription, but maybe I should. One of the articles this month is titled, "How to Get a Reporter to Pay Attention to You." Free advice: return phone calls promptly. Here's the link.
Local Sotomayor Celebration
The Minnesota Hispanic Bar Association is hosting a celebratory reception for the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.The event will be held on Thursday, August 27 beginning at 5pm at the Landmark Center in St Paul. Confirmed speakers include U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis and State Senator Patrcia Torres Ray. U.S Senator Al Franken and Governor Tim Pawlenty have also been invited.
The event is free of charge but space is limited. Individuals may RSVP to MNSotomayorevent@gmail.com.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Out of work? Have a baby
This is a weird but apparently serious posting from Above the Law:
"In these tough economic times, people are (1) having trouble finding jobs as they come out of law school, (2) recently laid-off, or (3) miserable in the jobs they still have, given how low morale is and how many hours they're expected to work now (given the 'be grateful for your job' mentality).
"People in such situations are often unable to make a change, given how few jobs there are out there and how much competition there is for them. But they're scared to just up and quit, because very few employers would actually buy that they had resigned and not been fired.
"What's a girl to do? Make babies. That's what."
Comments to the post seem to say that "a lot" of women lawyers (whatever that means) are taking this path.
"In these tough economic times, people are (1) having trouble finding jobs as they come out of law school, (2) recently laid-off, or (3) miserable in the jobs they still have, given how low morale is and how many hours they're expected to work now (given the 'be grateful for your job' mentality).
"People in such situations are often unable to make a change, given how few jobs there are out there and how much competition there is for them. But they're scared to just up and quit, because very few employers would actually buy that they had resigned and not been fired.
"What's a girl to do? Make babies. That's what."
Comments to the post seem to say that "a lot" of women lawyers (whatever that means) are taking this path.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)