Biglaw Firm Fires Back After Discrimination Lawsuit

// Silhouette of gavel Last month, the Biglaw firm of Polsinelli was hit with a discrimination lawsuit. The case, filed by former equity partner Julia Rix, alleged pervasive sexual harassment over the course of her time at the firm. Rix says she was “‘warned’ about the prevalence of sexual harassment of women at Polsinelli,” and details a “workplace rife with mistreatment and impropriety—and a culture indifferent to the ‘situation’ given this ‘tone at the top.’” The suit also highlights “Polsinelli’s callous gaslighting of Rix in response to her claims of sexual harassment is shocking—but not surprising.”

But now, the Biglaw is fighting back. Last week, the firm filed its response in the form of a partial motion to dismiss and a motion to compel arbitration. The motion argues Rix’s employment contract requires claims be stated under Missouri state law, and that under that standard, they’d fail:

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-top-300x250" ); });

Defendants Polsinelli and [Gabriel Y.] Dabiri move under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Rix’s claims under D.C. law because Rix has failed to bring her claims under Missouri law, as required by the terms of her employment agreement; and under Missouri law, her state law claims fail for various reasons, including her failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Missouri law does not provide for individual liability, Missouri law preempts Rix’s tort claims, and her factual allegations fall short of the applicable pleading standard.

Sponsored The Smartfirm Playbook - Thriving In Today’s Legal Landscape Strategically using software and automation to boost efficiency and streamline operations, allowing for a laser-focus on practicing law. From Lawmatics

And the firm invokes their arbitration agreement with Rix:

The scope of the agreement is broad; it covers all claims related to the business, professional, or employment relationship between Rix and Polsinelli and any disputes about the terms of the employment agreement itself. The agreement to arbitrate is mutual — both Rix and Polsinelli agreed to bind themselves to resolve all disputes exclusively through arbitration. But for the recent enactment of the [Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act], all of Rix’s claims would be subject to binding arbitration.

googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-middle-300x250" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-storycontent-440x100" ); }); googletag.cmd.push( function() { // Display ad. googletag.display( "div-id-for-in-story-youtube-1x1" ); });

The firm’s counsel, Laura De Santos of Gordon Rees, said Rix was not subjected to sexual harassment during her time at the firm. De Santos pointed to poor performance as the reason Rix was booted from Polsinelli:

“As our recent filing in connection with Ms. Rix’s lawsuit shows, Polsinelli does not tolerate harassment or discrimination, and Ms. Rix was not subjected to sexual harassment, a hostile work environment or retaliation while at the firm. With a proven record of over half of the firm’s senior leadership positions being held by women, Ms. Rix was surrounded by female leadership during her tenure, and the firm supported Ms. Rix for over two years with an abundance of resources.

Ms. Rix failed to deliver any of the portable business that she represented would follow her to the firm and never came close to meeting the performance requirements that she agreed to before she joined the firm.

Her poor performance is what led to the termination of her employment, not any complaint. Ms. Rix never voiced or filed a complaint until after the firm’s board of directors had voted to terminate her employment. After the decision by the board, Ms. Rix reported a vague complaint that did not include names, dates or locations of any of the alleged incidents she now claims occurred and she refused to even discuss her complaint with the firm. The first time the firm was made aware of any details behind her complaint was through her filing of this lawsuit.

We have since investigated her claims and are looking forward to proving that Ms. Rix was not subjected to sexual harassment, a hostile work environment or retaliation. The two attorneys she implicates in her complaint were her peers who were located in a different office and practiced in a different practice group. Neither was in a position to have any influence in, nor had access to, the firm’s evaluation of Ms. Rix’s performance or decisions regarding her compensation or the termination of her employment.”

Biglaw Firm Fires Back After Discrimination Lawsuit

Share

Categories

Share