Jury Duty, Trials

Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi: A Post-Trial Interview With Plaintiff's Counsel

How does Alexandra Marchuk feel about the jury verdict in her case, and what does she plan to do next?

By  
on

Yesterday the jury issued its verdict in Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi, the closely watched sexual harassment case brought by a young lawyer, Alexandra Marchuk, against her former firm and one of its top partners, Juan Monteverde. The jury found liability under New York City’s human rights law and awarded Marchuk a total of $140,000: $90,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages ($45,000 from Monteverde and $5,000 from Faruqi & Faruqi as a firm).

When I interviewed them yesterday, defendant Lubna Faruqi and lead defense lawyer Scott Bursor declared themselves very pleased with the verdict. They noted the modest size of the damages compared to what Marchuk sought and pointed out that the jury found liability just under New York City law, not under federal or New York State law.

How does plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk and her lead counsel, Harry Lipman, feel about the jury verdict? This morning I connected by phone with Lipman to get his take.

“Lexie Marchuk is truly the heroine of this story,” Lipman said. “She bravely pursued claims of a highly personal nature against people who she correctly predicted would defend the case viciously — and she won. While the damages were modest, the jury unanimously found that Juan Monteverde and the Faruqi firm mistreated Lexie Marchuk so severely that she was fully justified in quitting the firm — otherwise the jury would not have awarded back pay and front pay.”

“The result was also particularly amazing because a lot of testimony and other evidence of defendants’ abhorrent conduct were kept from the jury, including evidence that Mr. Monteverde had sexually harassed two other female associates, who also quit the Faruqi firm,” he continued. “Women in the workplace owe Ms. Marchuk and others like her a debt of gratitude for taking a stand – and taking the stand – against employers and supervisors who create hostile work environments and abuse their power.”

So there are certainly aspects of the verdict for Marchuk to celebrate (as well as the reputational harm to Monteverde and the Faruqi firm from the litigation). But given the seriousness of her allegations, including claims that Juan Monteverde essentially sexually assaulted her after the Faruqi holiday party, is she satisfied with the award?

“She’s happy she won,” Lipman said. “She probably would have liked to win bigger, obviously; the jury award was smaller than we hoped and expected. But she has a great attitude and great friends. She’s young and she has a whole life ahead of her.”

Sponsored

Some observers have raised the possibility of Marchuk obtaining additional money through an award of attorney’s fees, which is permitted under New York City’s human rights law. I raised this with Lipman.

“We will be applying for fees,” he said. “There is a window in which we need to make the fee application — and fees in this case could be significant.” (As for how those fees would be allocated between lawyer and client, Lipman explained that that is generally a matter of contract between lawyer and client, but declined to describe his particular arrangement with Marchuk.)

As noted in our prior coverage, Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.) made a number of legal rulings adverse to Marchuk. Does she plan to appeal to the Second Circuit?

“Whether or not we will appeal is one thing, but we definitely have appellate issues,” Lipman said. “The judge excluded a lot of evidence, including evidence about two other women who were harassed. There’s a case called Perry out of the Second Circuit that the court was very aware of. The court went back and forth on whether to let in that evidence. The judge out of the box said no, he would not be allowing that evidence. Then he left the bench, perhaps to read Perry, and came back and said that Perry does permit this evidence. But then he flip flopped again and ultimately ended up excluding.”

Lipman cited the testimony of Kerrianne Goodwin, a former Faruqi employee, about how Monteverde made the offensive “Shocker” gesture in her presence.

Sponsored

“The testimony about ‘The Shocker’ — that was not allowed in. Goodwin literally said in her resignation letter to the Faruqis that Monteverde sexually harassed her. The judge did not let that in. The jury was instructed to disregard it. I don’t see why the jury had to disregard it, since it was part of the hostile work environment that follows this guy around.”

Lipman also identified the judge’s dismissal of Marchuk’s retaliation and defamation claims as possible issues for appeal.

“We have not committed either way, but my personal preference would be to appeal,” Lipman said.

But if Marchuk were to prevail on appeal, she’d have to go through the whole painful ordeal of a trial once again, wouldn’t she?

“She would do it again,” Lipman said of his client. “She is the real deal, and she feels strongly about what happened to her.”

“The defendants are trying to spin the thing as a win, and it wasn’t. A year from now, five years from now, ten years from now, what people will remember is that the Faruqis and Monteverde went to trial and lost.”

Assault Suit Hurt Faruqi Even Before Verdict, Attorneys Say [Law360 (sub. req.)]

Earlier: Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi: A Post-Trial Interview With The Defense
Breaking: Verdict In Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi
Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi: 5 Observations From Inside The Courtroom

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,