posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 1:58 PM
by
Lou Michels
Sidley Update
I've already posted about the Sidley Austin age discrimination case pending here in Chicago, where the EEOC is suing Sidley's over its force-out of a number of older partners. The case continues to go badly for the law firm, which has already lost its attempt to characterize the terminated partners as true "partners," as well as a number of discovery motions. The case has now moved into an even more contentious phase with the Commission seeking documentation of the alleged complaints that Sidley used as justification for demoting 31 partners in 1999.
The Commission asked Sidley to turn over all complaints filed by its clients between 1995 and 1999. Alternatively, the EEOC has asked the court to prevent Sidley from arguing that it demoted the subject partners in response to complaints if Sidley refuses to provide the information.
The EEOC is simply doing what any plaintiff would do in a similar case -- determining whether the non-discriminatory reason provided by the employer was a pretext for illegal discrimination. For its part, Sidley is delaying the day of reckoning with an odd "meet and confer" argument that the EEOC's own regulations supposedly require, although my understanding of that requirement is that it applies to prelitigation efforts.
On a related note, many firms have a mandatory retirement policy for partners reaching a certain age, and these policies are coming under attack as the workforce ages. The New York State Bar Association recently criticized mandatory retirement programs for older attorneys, saying that the requirements effectively cheat the public out of competent counselors with a wide body of experience.
This case has been pending for two years now and there does not appear to be an end in sight. But the conventional wisdom seems to be running against the law firm, and the Commission has every incentive to push this through to its conclusion. Stay tuned.