Kirkland & Ellis: We Love Minorities!
(But don't dare take us to court if you are one. Instead, please sign our mandatory arbitration policy. Thanks!)
We bring you two interesting updates on our friends at Kirkland & Ellis -- one important, and one silly.
Let's start with the trivial, and work our way up. First, from a tipster:
The balkanization of Kirkland & Ellis continues. Why should an "informal, visible network for attorneys to exchange ideas, provide support, and develop relationships" be based on race and/or sexual orientation? What's next, separate cafeterias and drinking fountains?A recent email from The Kirkland & Ellis LLP Diversity Committee reads:
Kirkland & Ellis Diversity Networking Forums (Chicago Office)
On behalf of the Diversity Committee, I am proud to announce a new addition to our diversity programming, Diversity Networking Forums. The main purpose of the Diversity Networking Forums is to provide an informal, visible network for attorneys to exchange ideas, provide support, and develop relationships. There will be four Diversity Networking Forums:
Asian Diversity Networking Forum
Black Diversity Networking Forum
Hispanic/Latino Diversity Networking Forum
GLBT Diversity Networking ForumThe Diversity Networking Forums are open to all Chicago Kirkland attorneys. If you are interested in becoming a part of any of these forums, please email Attorney Training and Development at [xxxx] by February 8 and indicate which forums you would like to join.
Note that the forums are "open to all." We wonder if that language was added to avoid a psuedo-controversy like the one over K&E's big gay party. We also wonder why you'd join one of these networking forums if you weren't a member of the group in question. But see "fag hags" signing up for the LGBT group.
Okay, on to the second update. Perhaps in an effort to avoid an Aaron Charney debacle -- or, on a smaller scale, a Schoenfeld v. Allen & Overy or a Morisseau v. DLA Piper -- K&E has enacted a mandatory employment arbitration policy, applicable to all associates. From a tipster:
Kirkland just sent a memo to all of its associates, which they had to sign, reminding them that they were at will employees, and telling them they had to agree to arbitrate any employment dispute. Apparently a response to Charney-gate.
If you're interested -- perhaps you're a labor and employment lawyer, or a Biglaw partner looking to foist such a policy on the associates at your own firm -- check out the memo, after the jump.
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP -- MEMORANDUM -- EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY -- ASSOCIATES
All of us are aware of the high costs and delays when disputes are resolved by litigating in the courts. Increasingly, employers and employees in small and large companies, including law firms, are finding that the use of internal dispute resolution techniques (IDR), such as arbitration, is mutually beneficial in resolving disputes that are not solved through internal grievance procedures. Certainly, most problems are solved through discussions with a supervisor, manager or a Kirkland & Ellis Human Resources representative. However, where these procedures do not produce a satisfactory result, the employee's only recourse has been to turn to the courts. The litigation process, however, has some disadvantages, including:
1. The process is adversarial
2. It is costly
3. It is time-consuming
[Ed. note: Oh, the irony! You'd expect K&E to be a little more positive about litigation, since it's one of their leading practice areas (and how they make a lot of their money). Last month, the American Lawyer named Kirkland its Litigation Department of the Year.]
To address these issues, we are announcing that Kirkland & Ellis LLP (the "Firm" or "K&E") is implementing an alternative dispute resolution program to cover disputes between the Firm and employees, as well as certain work-related disputes between employees. We believe this program will provide a more efficient means to resolve disputes that cannot otherwise be resolved internally.
The Policy provides that any dispute that cannot be resolved internally must be submitted to arbitration with a neutral arbitrator jointly selected by the parties. The arbitrator will hear the dispute with both sides having a full opportunity to be heard, and will render a decision which is binding on the parties. The American Arbitration Association ("AAA") has been chosen as the administrator of this program. The AAA is a not-for-profit national organization, recognized as a leading supplier of dispute resolution services. It is independent and impartial. An employee who initiates arbitration will pay the first twenty-five dollars ($25) of the required AAA administrative fee, and K&E will pay the remaining portion of the fee and all fees and costs of the arbitrator . If arbitration is initiated by K&E, then K&E will pay 100% of the required AAA administrative fee and all fees and costs of the arbitrator.
We are implementing the attached K&E Employment Arbitration Policy effective April 1, 2008. The Policy is mandatory and will govern all covered disputes involving U.S. employees who accept or continue their employment with K&E as of that date. Please take the time to review the Policy carefully. Once you have done so, indicate your review by clicking the "Acknowledge" button at the bottom of this email. Please provide your acknowledgment no later than Monday, March 3, 2008.
In the future, K&E employees can access the most recent version of the policy in the K&E Policy Manual located on K&EConnect.
Please review the attached instructions for accessing the K&E Policy Manual. If you have any questions about the Policy, please contact [xxxx] or [xxxx].
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
I hereby acknowledge that I have received the Firm's Employment Arbitration Policy and instructions for accessing the K&E Policy Manual on K&EConnect, which houses the policies and guidelines affecting my employment with Kirkland & Ellis LLP. I also recognize that, as of April 1, 2008, the attached Employment Arbitration Policy will be in full effect for all U.S. employees who accept or continue their employment with K&E as of that date. I understand that I am responsible for familiarizing myself with and abiding by the Employment Arbitration Policy and all other Firm policies and will seek verification or clarification of terms or guidance where necessary. Furthermore, I acknowledge that neither individual policies, nor the policy manual, is a contract of employment and nothing in the K&E Policy Manual creates an express or implied contract of employment.
Litigation Department of the Year: Kirkland & Ellis [American Lawyer]
(56) Comments
1
K & E will also be forming a "networking forum" for men who were beaten up by women while summer associates.
Can they actually enforce this? I've seen opinions where mid-employment contracts were void for lack of consideration (the only difference is that the contract was an IP licensing agreement). It looks the same here.
Even if the company can enforce it, does it make a difference whether the action is of the wrongful discharge variety or of a Title VII action?
So nothing for Latinas?
Seems fair and reasonable to me
is that you Brian?
THIS IS GREAT. MAKES YOU FEEL LIKE GUNNING FOR AN OFFER AT K&E, AND GOOSE STEPPING OVER THERE TO SIGN UP FOR MANDATORY ARBITRATION.
K&E associates---you have 39 days to file your suits
12:01, I don't know the law everywhere, but I've seen east coast law that mid-employment contracts for at-will employees are enforceable because the employer kept the employee employed for a while post-contract, which was the consideration; the cases I saw indicated that if the employer fired the employee shortly after execution of the contract, then the contract wouldn't be enforceable, but if the employee was kept employed for a while afterwards, the contract would be binding.
I doubt this arbitration agreement would hold muster in California courts.
Good luck trying to enforce this in California. I'm not sure about Illinois. New York should be fine.
I believe Title VII claims at least cannot be subject to mandatory arbitration. Don't know about state-law discrimination claims though.
Mountain. Molehill. Care?
And what if they refuse to "acknowledge"?
So, if I have a problem with a co-worker (either a partner or another associate), and the firm doesn't resolve it to my satisfaction - I can get it in front of an independent arbitrator for $25? This means that all those grievances I usually have to let slide - I could raise them, and when the partners summarily dismiss them, I can force them in front of an indepedent arbitrator? I think I can make this work. Wow! My office could keep one partner in arbitration so long she'd never be able to bill. As long as the arbitrator decided I had a colorable claim (even if I didn't prevail), would I be protected from retaliation? My firm out to implement this asap!
This is a good idea -- groups that have been systematically discriminated against could use the help networking, simply because there are so few of them in power (and it's non-exclusionary, so straight white men who want to network with powerful people who are members of minority classes -- because we know how hard it is for straight white men to find people to relate to in an industry dominated by, um, straight white men -- are just as able to do so as anyone else). But why don't women get a networking group? It's not like there are a ton of us running law firms and corporations either -- we could use the extra networking help just as much as our fellow political minorities. Unless there's already a women's group, in which case why the hell did it take them so long to recognize the others?
I understand Orrick has similar diversity forums, although they also have one for females, and I heard from a friend they have one for males as well (with the presumption it is for white males because they would not be part of any other forum)
Why only 1 arbitrator? Why not a panel of 3; one chosen by K&E, one by the employee and a neutral from a list provided by AAA?
So is the reminder that they are at-will a thinly veiled threat to fire them if they don't agree to change the terms of their employment? There's got to be a blue state out there where that's illegal.
The arbitration memo is a direct statement against any firm's main product. Litigation. Next time the firm makes an argument that arbitration is a hinderance to their client, I assume someone will present this memo...it's good enough for the firm but not for the client?
I'm not signing it. I'll let you know what happens.
" Next time the firm makes an argument that arbitration is a hinderance to their client, I assume someone will present this memo...it's good enough for the firm but not for the client?"
Incredibly stupid comment.
12:55 - It wasn't so long ago that ALL of the states were RED states (except Minnesota).
It's quite obvious they are implying that you will be fired if you don't sign. I don't know what the law is, but it sure as hell shouldn't be enforceable.
1:07, I feel like I must be missing some double meaning to "red," as I don't think it's *ever* been the case that all but one state were dominated by conservative Republicans (or whatever comparable party was in existence at the time).
Smart move by K&E. I feel sorry for K&E's associates as they wont have the biggest weapon for this type of cases: bad publicity to the firm in question. I wonder what the agreement or policy says about confidentiality.
why is there a hideously ugly kid at the top of this page?
Check out your 1984 Presidential Election Results 1:07 (although this is back in the time when we used to alternate colors for every election)
http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?f=0&year=1984
Perhaps this is an attempt to avoid talentless dreck suing for imaginary slights along the lines of Shoenfeld and Morisseau?
Whether you sign the policy or not might not make a difference. If K and E can prove that you were aware of the policy, they can argue that they changed the conditions of employment, and you continuing to work there was an acceptance of the changed terms.
1:19, wow, that was pretty calloused, even for an ATL comment.
1:22: And in 1964 almost the entire country voted Democrat. What exactly is your point?
Voting for Reagan (and, just as likely, against a female veep) hardly makes a state dominated by conservatives. Reagan's win was thanks to the cult of personality (the exact same thing that's driving Obama's momentum in the primaries) -- Reagan owes his victory to a lot of one-time-Republican-voting liberals. Not to mention, look at the ridiculous (and slightly terrifying for anyone who is remotely fond of democracy) disparity between the popular vote and the electoral vote. Fuck, but we need to scrap that system.
1:19, you are the biggest jackass ever in the history of the website.
Title VII claims certainly can be subject to mandatory arbitration contracts. Some circuits require a heightened "knowing and voluntary" waiver of the statutory and constitutional remedy (access to the courts), but the Supreme Court has made clear that employment arbitration contracts stand on equal footing as other contracts. I don't know about some states' laws, but generally any Kirkland associate - even those who consciously continue employment without pressing the acknowledge button - will have "knowingly and voluntarily" agreed to the contract by accepting continued employment with their firm.
1:38 - I don't think you know what you're talking about. If "a lot of one-time-Republican-voting liberals" voted for Reagan in 1984, how do you account for his win in 1980? Were there just that many more Republicans just 4 years earlier? In 1980 Reagan won 40 states (and 50% of the popular vote), and in 1984 he won 49 states (with a 17 million vote lead ahead of Mondale). So what is the disconnect here between popular vote and electoral college?
The electoral vote will never go away. It was 40 years between elections that were close enough to argue the electoral vs. popular vote issue, and in only one of them did the result go against the popular vote. And you'd never get 38 states to agree to change the process. So get used to it.
1:38 - Reagan may have won in 1980 based on his "cult of personality" but in 1984 it was all about a four-year history of accomplishments and an incredibly weak Democratic ticket. As for your comment about the electoral college, please note that we live in a republic, not a democracy, and for good reason.
Kirkland and Ellis is trying to stem the tide of minorities exiting their firm. So they can keep getting work from minority GC's. Everybody is doing it.
Minorities, like everyone else, like to see people around them who look like them. Most of the time. Or should I say some of the time. Either way, it's a win win for everyone! Until someone sues that is.
1:19
I think the hideously ugly kid is there to make you feel good about the fact that we money and so our kids won't turn out that way. (e.g. we can get their shit fixed)
1:29 - Signing the policy definitely does not make a difference:
" I also recognize that, as of April 1, 2008, the attached Employment Arbitration Policy will be in full effect for all U.S. employees who accept **or continue their employment with K&E as of that date.**"
to 2:18- (stating that firms want minorities to attract work from minority GG's)-- that is partly true, but more importantly, most large/Fortune 500 firms have decided that their vendors (including lawyers) should have commitment to minorities/diversity. In other words, law firms' commitment to diversity is largely driven by the clients' marketing efforts.
2:36 - are you saying that clients would rather have a substandard minority lawyer rather than a white lawyer with superior skills?
See N.D. Ill. Cases No. 07 CV 0975, 0978, 0979 and 1166. Defendant is Kirkland & Ellis LLP.
See 07 CV 0975 Docket No. 44. See also No. 47 and the discovery requests attached thereto as exhibits.
See also 07 CV 0975 Docket No. 22 and all attachments.
"If "a lot of one-time-Republican-voting liberals" voted for Reagan in 1984, how do you account for his win in 1980?"
Um, ever hear of Jimmy Carter?
Obama dem, you had certainly better hope that leaners will switch parties for a charismatic candidate. In case you hadn't noticed, Obama's supporters seem to be situated in a lot of red states...
Seriously lat, remove the hideous monster image. Definitely NSFW.
The cases listed by 219 are civil rights cases.
The 07 cv 0975 has an amended complaint covering 18 U.S.C. 2520 - illegal cellular telephone interception for several months.
Is this the real reason? Deny, deny, deny is the answer.
3:00, would you rather have a lawyer of uncertain skill (because, come on, the quality of a lawyer is hardly on an easily-interpreted numerical scale) with whom you felt more comfortable, or a lawyer of uncertain skill with whom you felt less comfortable?
Just like hetero white boys feel more comfortable around other hetero white boys, it's entirely reasonable that people who aren't hetero white boys could feel the same way.
3:46 comfortableness can be achieved across racial lines -- your comments are the reason people think they can ask for a white/black employee, female/male employee, straight/homosexual, etc.; your comments insinuate that a persons ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual orientation dictates how they perform on the job
my comment however eludes to the fact that a number of lawyers who were granted access to law school for non-merit reasons simply cannot provide the same quality of services as others who were admitted based on merit -- I'm glad my law school strived for racial diversity because it certainly helped my curve.
if an attorney can't make his/her client comfortable and earn their trust, than they haven't done their job
I checked out PACER for the Kirkland suits cited by 3:10 p.m.
If the alleged cell phone interception occurred, then I see why the new policy was adoapted.
What the f**k is going on at the Litigation Firm of the Year?
"your comments insinuate that a persons ethnicity, race, religion, or sexual orientation dictates how they perform on the job"
Um, NO. Perhaps a hasty reading caused the obvious and straightforward meaning of my comment to ELUDE you, but I simply pointed out the basic fact that people feel more comfortable around people to whom they feel they can relate. This has nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with personal comfort -- and if you have enough money (as big firm clients tend to), you can buy all the personal comfort you want. I ALLUDED to nothing further, though you seem to have read more into it, and have betrayed your pathetic racism in doing so.
In fact, if anything, straight white dudes are the ones who, historically, have had a problem relating with anyone different from them. Everyone else had no other choice; if they wanted *any* doctor, lawyer, boss, etc., they had to deal with a straight (or passing) white guy.
Interesting, too, that you brag that the perceived inferiority of others gives you a pass to be lazy (since, you know, you have so much "merit," which you know for a fact your non-white classmates did not, since, you know, they're not white and all). Boy, what a catch you must be for your clients.
Um, 9:37... you read into 4:47's comment that the minority students gave him a pass to be lazy. S/he didn't say that. S/he said that the minority students helped the curve. And you know what? S/he is right! Not because minority students are inferior, but the fact that a student is a minority increases the likelihood that he or she was admitted for reasons other than merit.
During the first day of every class, I would count the number of minority students and get excited if they numbered more than 15%.
Tacit admission that discrimination of minorities at Kirkland & Ellis exists at a level to justify the arbitration policy and the resulting bad PR, not to mention the negative effects it will have on minority attorney retention and recruitment at the firm.
I don't see that Kirkland has as claims/lawsuit history to justify the policy any more than any of its competitors. Begs the question: what's the real reason for the policy?
My condolences to the minority attorneys at Kirkland. Minority attorney recruits beware!
Nice going, Kirkland. You should be stripped of the obviously bogus pro-minority awards bestowed upon.
Signed:
Minority Attorney at competitor law firm
10:23 - The African American support staff member who filed 07-0975 alleged systemic discrimination at the support staff level and that her cell phone was intercepted for a period of months during her EEOC investigation.
If her cell phone interception claim can hold water, may be that is the reason? Others may be looking at their cell phone bills and checking also.
Damn you f**king elitists!
What makes you think it's more acceptable to discriminate against a minority support staff member than it is against a minority attorney at a law firm?
What makes you think that discrimination on one level is not a reflection of discrimination on another level? The only difference is one is more blatant than the other.
Discrimination whether on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, disability . . . is WRONG!
There are no gradations of wrong based on the socioeconomic, educational, wealth or other perceived superior status of the victim.
Damn and sterilize all you snobby bastards!
weee... perfect site... i like it so much..this is the site im looking for.. i will really help me by my site in doing some articles//.,.^_^
_____________
http://www.tiscali-network.com/fastbroadband