Biglaw

Biglaw Partners May Yet Be People Employees

Another twist in the case.

By  
on
Kerrie Campbell

Kerrie Campbell

Buckle up kids — there’s a new development in the $100 million class-action case brought by former Chadbourne & Parke partner Kerrie Campbell against the Biglaw firm hoping to merge with Norton Rose Fulbright. You may remember Campbell — joined as lead plaintiff by two other former partners Jaroslawa Zelinsky Johnson and Mary Yelnick —  was booted from the partnership just a few months ago. Despite the personal setback that likely was, there is good news for her today.

Some of the bigger issues surrounding the class-action lawsuit brought by Campbell against Chadbourne were the Biglaw firm’s motions for summary judgment and to dismiss class- and collective-action claims. At the heart of the disputes is the notion that partners of law firms, by virtue of the partnership agreements and being part owners of the firm, are not properly considered employees as defined by employment discrimination statutes. Those motions have been set aside — for the moment — along with plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the counterclaims against her and to certify a conditional class under the Equal Pay Act. As Law.com reports, District Judge J. Paul Oetken has decided he’d like some discovery before ruling on the motions:

Concluding that it’s too early to answer that question, Oetken denied the competing motions and ordered “limited” discovery to determine if the three former Chadbourne partners deserve protection under employment laws, or if their former status as partial owners of the firm disqualifies them from bringing the suit. The judge said he would allow the two sides to renew most of their motions after the discovery period.

Obviously, this is far from a killing blow for either side. But Chadbourne now has to go through the expense and time of discovery before the issue can be cleared up, though in a statement they are still “confident that after such discovery the court will find that the plaintiffs are not employees under the law, and that their claims should be dismissed.” The plaintiffs, who likely bear a smaller discovery burden, are taking it as a much larger victory. David Sanford, of Sanford Heisler Sharp, and lead counsel for the Chadbourne plaintiffs released this statement:

Today’s ruling makes clear that law firms aren’t insulated from liability simply because their employees bear the title of “partner” or have signed a “partnership agreement.” Discovery will establish that law firm partners are entitled to the full protections of this country’s laws against discrimination and retaliation.

But the real winners are those of us who have been following the case closely, eager for that sweet, sweet Biglaw gossip.

Sponsored

Earlier: Biglaw Firm Hit With $100 Million Class Action Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
Chadbourne Swings Back Over Gender Bias Suit
These Biglaw Partners Are Super Pissed Someone Filed A Class Action Lawsuit On Their Behalf
Chadbourne Class Action Lawsuit Gets Juicy AF — Lawyer Fires Back Against Criticism
Biglaw Pay Discrimination Case Adds A New Plaintiff
There’s Now (Allegedly) Videotape In The Latest Biglaw Lawsuit Twist
Biglaw Firm Claims Partners Are Not Employees
3rd Former Partner Files Suit Against Chadbourne Over Unequal Pay
Biglaw Merger Means The End Of ‘Chadbourne & Parke’
Biglaw Firm Will Vote To Oust Partner Suing Them For Gender Discrimination
Court Docs Allege Biglaw Firm Made ‘Undisguised Threat’ To Potential Class Members
Chadbourne Kicks Out Partner Suing Them Over Gender Discrimination

headshotKathryn Rubino is an editor at Above the Law. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Sponsored

Topics

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