Roofiegate Resolved: Bingham Vindicated Prevails, Complaint Dismissed
As we’ve previously noted, when it comes to disputes between lawyers and their former firms, there are several sides to every story. For example, compare Yolanda Young’s claims against Covington & Burling with the firm’s response (PDF).
We try to cover both sides of these controversies. Having previously covered Roofiegate — aka Moor v. Bingham McCutchen, a complaint filed by ex-associate Michelle Moor against the firm, alleging that she was slipped a date rape drug at the firm’s holiday party — we now bring you this update.
The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) has dismissed Michelle Moor’s complaint:
Based upon the Commission’s investigation, the Commission is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes a violation of the statutes. This does not certify that the Respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this complaint.
Details, plus a link to the Commission’s ruling, after the jump.
The allegations by Moor, and the firm’s response, were previously covered here and here. The dismissal notice summarizes them again. Reading between the lines of the disposition, one gets the sense that perhaps Michelle Moor was planning on leaving the firm anyway:
Respondent states Complainant had been telling colleagues she was unhappy with the large firm environment prior to the December 2007 holiday party, and that she was seeking other employment. Respondent states Complainant updated her resume on February 7, 2008 and Complainant received and accepted a job offer prior to her resignation on February 26, 2008.
The MCAD dismissed Moor’s sexual harassment / hostile work environment claim because (1) she initially “could not bring any evidence or personal knowledge as to who drugged her”; (2) “she fails to provide evidence that the drugging was sexual in nature”; and (3) she “fails to allege or show that anything sexual in nature took place during the December 17, 2007 drugging.”
(“[S]he fails to provide evidence that the drugging was sexual in nature.” We’re not experts on roofie administration, but we hear that it’s also a good way to get a kidney.)
In any event, it does sound like the former Bingham employee that Moor identified as the one who drugged her could use some etiquette lessons:
[S]everal witnesses (dinner attendees) confirm that [the employee’s] conduct was inappropriate and he used sexually charged words during the conversation, including “pussy,” “roofies” and “balls.”
But such crudeness does not a viable MCAD claim make:
Although [the employee’s] comments appear inappropriate and sexually charged, Complainant fails to show the comments were directed towards her in an effort to affect her work environment.
The Commission also found insufficient evidence to support Moor’s claims of retaliation and constructive discharge.
Congratulations to Bingham on putting this unpleasantness behind them — at least for now. Moor has the right to appeal the dismissal. We’ll keep you posted.
Michelle Moor v. Bingham McCutchen LLP: Dismissal and Notification of Rights [PDF]
Earlier: Worst Holiday Office Party Ever?
Internal Bingham Email Offers Rebuttal to Ex-Associate’s Claims
(41) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
I always thought this complaint was a little fishy. Not surprised to see it dismissed.
Maybe now they'll announce start dates?
It was not Bingham. It was McCrutchen.
Can someone please tell me what a staff attorney is?
Vindication: n. [2] The defense, such as evidence or argument, that serves to justify a claim or deed
And while you're there, would you pick up some of that nice, green moon money for me -- Royce McCutcheon!
Guys at my firm used to use the words pussy, roofies and balls at firm events all the time, it was no big deal.
Frat Stud
But you didn't cover both sides of the Covington controversy. You had multiple unique posts about the complaint, yet this is the first mention of the response.
How is this a vindication? It is no such thing. No one is vindicated here.
I serve Viagra at all of my high class parties.
Stewart Griffin
Sounds like it was dismissed as it should have been. Long live big law!
The MCAD dismissed the case. How much more vindication do you want?
Not completely vindicated:
"This does not certify that the Respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this complaint."
Although not a peer firm, I was behind Bingham on this frivolous complaint. The commission's decision is spot on. In my 40 years plus of being at the forefront of the legal profession, I have witnessed many associates become inebriated to the point where they swim in their own vomit. I am confident that the associate in question was unaware of her limitations and exceeded them to her detriment. She has only herself to blame. I am disturbed about these types of complaints and I hope MA has a statute that allows the Bingham firm to countersue the associate for expenses and damages incurred with relation to defending these meritless claims. Stories like these support my advocacy of outsourcing legal work to foreign countries like India and the Philippines. To firm management committees: imagine the amount of money saved on insurace premiums if we outsourced menial legal tasks to foreign countries. You won't have to pay benefits, pension plans, medical plans or defend these types of preposterous claims. Food for thought.
I have come up with a new acronym. PESA.
Partner Emeritus Strikes Again!
No deal McCutcheon, that moon money's mine.
Ya Dr. Emeritus...
Once again your age shows. Ruffies are real and they screw you up bad. From what I have read I believe she was drugged. But it is a hard thing to prove. (suprised she did not wake up with a dildo in her privates) Lucky for her.
But I am sure we can agree that Mrs. Yolanda Young's case was frivolous and she got the smack down. My favorite parts were the bareley a C student and one of the least accurate Staff attorneys. If you are to dumb for doc review and have a C average your future is grim.
bingham is BOSS.
This is off-topic, but I noticed, Mr. Lat, that there's an AP story dated today (and linked to on Drudge) all about lawyer layoffs... and the article didn't refer to or mention Above the Law in any way. (Instead, it cited Lawshucks.com.)
Who knows why the reporter didn't do so, but I wonder if it has anything to do with the decreasing quality of this site over the past few months (sloppily written posts; laughably bad legal analysis; silly contests like the "safest firm" tournament, etc.). This site started out solid, but it seems that in the quest for additional page hits, it has sought out the lowest common denominator.
I see you've been posting more lately, which is perhaps a sign that you've realized it's gone off the tracks. Maybe it'll get better; or maybe I and many others will start reading Lawshucks, which I had never known about before but which just got a whole lot of free advertising and page hits, including from me.
19 - lawshucks compiles layoff data. It is mentioned on this site weekly. So shut the hell up.
"But such crudeness does not a viable MCAD claim make:"
Lat is either letting Elie or Yoda write his posts.
19, most of us learned of Lawshucks through reading ATL (because the sites have a partnership):
http://abovethelaw.com/2009/04/this_week_in_layoffs_041109.php
21 - I found it pleasantly literary, quasi-poetic. Very Lat.
Getting dismissed by the MCAD is meaningless. She has 3 years from the date of the incident to file suit in Superior Court. This ain't over.
I am dismayed by the image accompanying this post. In my day, we didn't use expensive needles to get roofies into our associates' drinks, just a recylced visine dropper. It is this kind of needless luxury which is causing all of BigLaw's financial woes.
Does the MCAD tend to be pro-plaintiff or pro-defendant?
Above the Law,
Fairness clearly requires that you do a separate piece on Covington's response given how much air time you gave to Yolanda's (crazy) complaint. First, it's the right thing to do. Second, Covington's response is an instructive, interesting and well-written read. That woman is more nuts than I thought. And how great is it that she was one of the slowest document reviewers AND out of 50+ staff attorneys, she had the highest error rate of all. Too bad Covington didn't fire her earlier. She made a ton of money off of them and it looks like she's even more incompetent than her terribly written complaint indicated.
The Covington letter is a good read and pretty compelling. Not only does it make her case look completely baseless but I was actually pretty impressed with the compensation and benefits Covington does offer their staff attorneys.
What about that crazy bitch Charlene Morrisseau? In my view, she beats every other spite suit against former employers COMBINED
As a lawyer, it shocks me how many of you don't understand that a finding of insufficient evidence doesn't "vindicate" anyone; it merely says that a certain legal standard of proof can't be met.
As a human being, it sickens me how many of you think this shit is funny. I don't know whether the crime in this case was what the plaintiff alleged or a false allegation but either way people's lives are being fucked with, and it's not a joke.
30 - It is vindication, of a sort. Not total vindication, but vindication. Plaintiff's claims were found to be unsupported by sufficient evidence.
It looks like the headline has been changed anyway:
"Roofiegate Resolved: Bingham Prevails, Complaint Dismissed"
It is true that Bingham has prevailed - at least for now.
30 - Make up your mind... are you a lawyer or a human being?
While the brief excerpts and summary published here of the MCAD decision are imprecise, it sounds as though:
• Bingham McCutchen was unable to disprove, or even controvert credibly, Michelle Moor's allegation that someone slipped a roofie into her drink during a holiday party sponsored by the firm.
• While Ms. Moor alleged that a specific Bingham McCutchen employee was the one who drugged her, she lacked sufficient evidence to prove this conclusively.
• Due at least in part to her unconsciousness as the result of being drugged, Ms. Moor was unable to present conclusive proof that she was raped or sexually assaulted at the firm's holiday party, or that anything else of a sexual nature took place while she was unconscious.
• While Ms. Moor presented several witnesses who testified consistently that one of the Bingham McCutchen employees used crude language and behaved improperly in her vicinity during the party, she could not prove that this had been targeted specifically at her individually, or intended to affect her work environment adversely.
In other words, Ms. Moor was assaulted at the firm's holiday party by being drugged unconscious without her consent, an action which was criminal in nature, but she lacks sufficient evidence to meet the legal burden of proof for showing that this was done by the alleged individual, that she was raped, or that a male colleague's improper and offensive conduct was targeted at her individually.
People may draw varying conclusions from this, depending upon each individual's background and perspective. If Bingham McCutchen thinks that every individual who considers these facts will without exception view them as indicating responsible conduct toward female employees, however, or as absolving the firm of any stain upon its moral character, the firm is deluding itself.
Not long ago I read a study that showed that over 90% of people at the Emergency Room complaining of being drugged had in fact just drank too much alcohol. People forget how factors such as lack of sleep or food can have on alcohol tolerance.
binghan will be v40 next rankings. 2 years later they'll be in the v20. best managed firm in the country.
Hahahaha. 36 are you Jay Zimmerman himself?
I love you uncle B, but seriously, announce start dates already, I want to plan my (possibly extended) bar trip.
The article is meaningless without pictures.
I am appalled by the lack of both humanity and common sense in a great number of the comments regarding this incident. Sexual harassment, assault, and slipping someone a date rape drug are truly horrible crimes. Allegations of these crimes are not made lightly and must be taken seriously. Comments like those made by partner emeritus clearly show a lack of touch with reality and a lack of professionalism that is astounding in today's world.
It is out of touch attorneys such as partner emeritus who have caused the collapse of the legal industry. They need to catch up with the times or retire.
8 - Will you please shut up already? It doesn't need any follow up. Anyone who read her complaint knows it's complete garbage. Get over it.
Should the complaint have been dismissed? Perhaps. But I wouldn't call the suit frivolous, nor would I say that Bingham has been in any way vindicated. Even if the firm did nothing strictly illegal, they handled the situation very poorly and deserve all the bad press.