|
THE BAKER & MCKENZIE SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION CASE
A San Francisco Superior Court jury awarded Rena Weeks, a former
secretary at the world's largest law firm, $50,000 for emotional
distress and $7.1 million in punitive damages after she alleged
that a partner at the firm sexually harassed her.
In a pivotal charge against former Baker & McKenzie partner
Martin Greenstein, Rena claimed that he dropped candies in the
pocket of her blouse, groped her breast, pressed against her from
behind and pulled her arms back to "see which one is bigger."
Weeks worked for Greenstein for 25 days and was transferred after
she complained. She resigned about a month later to take another
job. Greenstein, who attracted much business to the firm, was
not dismissed or otherwise disciplined until well into the litigation.
At trial, seven other former employees of the firm testified
about improper advances by Greenstein. The law firm's own witnesses
admitted that they knew Greenstein had been dogged for years by
complaints of harassment. In some instances, the firm had not
bothered to talk to employees who had complained. Greenstein's
conduct was concealed because the firm kept complaints in the
women's files rather than Greenstein's. The jury found that the
law firm knew of Greenstein's harassing behavior and failed to
rein him in.
Jurors calculated punitive damages by taking about 10 percent
of the firm's capital. "When you get religion, you should
tithe," one juror commented, alluding to the firm's testimony
about its new attitude toward harassment complaints. "The
only time they [the firm] did anything was when they were threatened
by a lawsuit," another juror said. One other juror commented:
"Any time anybody complained, they were retaliated against
in some fashion, so we thought we should give [the law firm] a
good wake-up call."
The jury awarded Weeks $6.9 million in punitive damages from
the law firm and $225,000 from Greenstein.
The verdict prompted The New York Times to editorialize: "If
that judgment conveys its intended meaning, law firms and other
enterprises across the country will bolt from their complacency
and rectify the mistreatment of women in the workplace. That this
large, rich firm finally grasps this fact [that such complaints
must be given prompt and serious attention] is the best evidence
that punitive damages can do wonders for human understanding."
In analyzing the jury's award, the American Lawyer magazine stated:
"[I]nterviews with 11 of the 12 jurors dispel the notion
that the six men and six women simply ran amok by awarding [punitive
damages]. . . . Those jurors recount methodical discussions, carefully
framed by the jury instructions, to which they repeatedly returned."
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $3.5
million.
|