Jury Duty, Trials

Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi: A Post-Trial Interview With The Defense

How should we view the jury's verdict and damages award in Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi?

By  
on

What should we make of the jury verdict in Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi? This afternoon, the eight-person jury awarded plaintiff Alexandra Marchuk a total of $140,000 in her sexual harassment lawsuit against her former firm and one of its most prominent partners, Juan Monteverde. That struck me as low, given the claims being made in the case, and a win for the defense.

I just spoke to Scott Bursor, counsel to the defendants, and to defendant Lubna Faruqi, one of the founding partners of Faruqi & Faruqi (together with her brother Nadeem). Scott Bursor and Lubna Faruqi both described themselves as very happy with the jury verdict. I talked to them by phone when they were in a cab leaving court and on their way to celebrate.

“This is a fantastic outcome for the Faruqis and Monteverde,” Bursor said. “The plaintiff sued for $22 million and she got $140,000.”[1]

Bursor pointed out that by the time the case got to the jury, it was already significantly narrowed due to rulings by Judge Alvin Hellerstein (S.D.N.Y.). Last week, Judge Hellerstein exonerated the Faruqis by dismissing claims against Nadeem and Lubna Faruqi as individuals. He also eliminated Marchuk’s defamation and retalation claims.

Today the jury found no liability under federal law for Faruqi & Faruqi as a firm, and no liability under federal law for Juan Monteverde. As for New York State’s human rights law, the judge had previously exonerated Faruqi & Faruqi as a firm; in its verdict, the jury found no liability under New York State law for Juan Monteverde.

The jury’s finding of liability and award of $140,000 rested entirely on New York City’s human rights law. And that law, Bursor said, is rather pro-plaintiff: “Under the New York City law, all you have to prove is that the plaintiff was treated less well because of her gender — or at least that’s how Judge Hellerstein instructed the jury. The jury returned a verdict under that law that awarded $90,000 in damages, for back pay and front pay, but zero on emotional damages.”

“Remember, this is a trial where the plaintiff claimed she was raped, spending three days on the stand crying. They put a psychologist on the stand who said that she had PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder], like a Vietnam vet. There was a separate line on the verdict form for emotional damages, and the jury found no emotional damages. This makes crystal clear that the jury did not buy her story about what happened after that holiday party.”

Sponsored

According to Bursor, the jury was instructed that if the conduct in question (like a sexual advance) was welcome, then there can be no liability under federal or state law. Under New York City law, in contrast, even welcome sexual contact can give rise to liability. The jury’s finding of liability under New York City law but not under federal or New York State law shows the conduct was fully consensual, as he and his clients have maintained throughout the litigation.

“The jury simply did not believe Ms. Marchuk’s story about what happened in that office at 3 a.m.,” Bursor said. “The finding of no liability under federal or state law and the zero-dollar emotional damages confirm that. The jury did give her a token award under New York City law, but we’re going to look at that and see if it will stand up.”

Wait. So the defendants might actually appeal, despite being hit for a mere $140,000, when some observers predicted the possibility of a seven-figure payout?

“The award is so small that it may not be worth it,” Bursor acknowledged. “But I have to talk to my clients because they feel very strongly about fighting for what is right. That’s why this case went to trial.”

The theme of fighting for what’s right was the focus on my conversation with Lubna Faruqi.

Sponsored

“I’m very emotional,” she said, her voice slightly suffused with sobs. “There are a lot of tears coming from me right now because it has been a very hard two years. But I am elated and I am humbled. I thank God for this.”

“It was a tough road that we chose to take,” Lubna continued. “But my brother and I believed in it. I was brought up by wonderful people who taught me you can always take the easy road but when you know someone is wrongfully accused, you can do something to make it right. It has come at tremendous cost but it doesn’t matter because we won, and we are here. The reality of this is that my brother and I gave [Alexandra Marchuk] a job because she asked for a job. She couldn’t find a job anywhere. Sometimes we’re not always paid for our good deeds.”

Lubna Faruqi composed herself before concluding on a happier, lighter note.

“My ponytail is flying really high right now.”

[1] UPDATE (7:10 p.m.): The $140,000 in damages took the form of $90,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages — $45,000 from Monteverde and $5,000 from Faruqi as a firm. The $22 million figure reflects the damages requested in the operative complaint, taking into account all counts (including ones that didn’t make it to the jury), plus the request for punitive damages.

Earlier: Breaking: Verdict In Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi
Alexandra Marchuk v. Faruqi & Faruqi: 5 Observations From Inside The Courtroom

Topics

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