Covington & Burling has filed a response to the complaint filed by staff attorney Yolanda Young alleging that the firm inflated its minority staff numbers by relegating African-Americans in staff attorney jobs with no chance of promotion in the associate rankings. Covington responded with a remarkably rough (and low) appraisal of not just Young but, in the view of some, the other staff attorneys at the firm.
Young filed a 37-page complaint in February accusing Covington of a hostile work environment for black lawyers, including maintaining a type of “Jim Crow” policy and having colleagues read out from a list of racial slurs, and that she had been called a “dog” and “monkey.” She says that after she complained, she was punished by being sent to an office with no minorities.
After graduating from Howard and then Georgetown, Young wrote a book and began doing commentary for National Public Radio, Washington Post, USA Today and other publications. She has a web, www.onbeingablacklawyer.com. She published a piece in the Huffington Post titled “Law Firm Segregation Reminiscent of Jim Crow,” blasting the firm.
Her complaint alleges that less than five percent of Covington’s partners, counsels, and associates are black and less than ten percent are minorities. However, roughly thirty percent of the staff attorneys are black and fifty percent are minorities.
In this letter, Covington blasts Young as a poor law student and even worse lawyer. The letter states that staff attorneys are hired under an entirely different and far less demanding set of standards because they primarily do document review. The firm states that such attorneys are sometime hired through temp agencies and were never treated as associates or potential partners. At $65,000, they are also paid far less than associates. The firm criticized Young as having just slightly above a C average at her law school and did not pass the bar for three years. The letter says that she has never actually practiced law and is portrayed as a glorified document reader (a view that might rub current staff attorneys the wrong way at the firm). Nevertheless, with bonuses and benefits, she received $170,000 (with a $70,000 base pay).
Young insists that “Covington can say what they like now, but they hired me.”
The case could raise an interesting question regarding such programs. The comparison to the associate and partnership tracks will likely be unavailing since it appears clear that these lawyers were informed that they were should not expect to be part of the firm partnership track. This may come down to past practices. If some lawyers were moved into the partnership or associate positions, it will be a bit more difficult for Covington. This is a case where the firm would be better served to have a hardcore bar on crossing over from one line of lawyers to another line.
Firms have increasingly opted for non-partnership tracks and temporary lines of employment for lawyers. This case could have a significant impact on such programs.
Of course, Covington partners are known to go above and beyond recently.
For a copy of the complaint, click here.
For the full story, click here.
BIL: there’s certainly nothing in your last posting I disagree with. I opined to a friend recently that the economy is just a symptom, the real problem is political. If it wasn’t, there wouldn’t be an economic process. (While circular logic IS a flawed thought process all resultant conclusions are not necessarily incorrect.) The only real virtue to seeing the finance district on SW in flames is that it might concentrate and focus the thoughts and actions of the (majorly) buffoons elected and appointed to office.
Rich, “Law firms seem to be replicating the CEO culture of inflating rewards at the top while creating an easily exploitable underclass who do the actual work.”
Other things may also be at work. One of the reasons that labor unions resisted women and minorities entering male dominated blue collar crafts they controlled is because once the did the pay went down, the employer valued the work based on who was doing it and those decisions were not made on merit.
I’m talking about even before the Reagan revolution and the devaluation of labor as a means to further the concentration of wealth upwards. Before ’72 there wasn’t any inherent legal liability for a union official or an employer to lie about it to women and before ’68 to lie about it to anyone. They weren’t shy about telling you how and why you were being discriminated against.
They’re better at constructing ways around the truth now but the result is the same; to trend the reward selectively in a way that was not merit based. In the chicken/egg of it I think the bigotry came first.
I saw it happen in the 70s in my own craft among several and was warned by labor advocate professionals to be vigilant in opposition to it; though we had no hope of stopping the devaluation of the work we could delay it and still agitate for equal rights.
If this hadn’t been a blog where most people seem to know the subject matter they discuss and require/deserve more than a flippant comment my response to the article would have been a dismissive ‘Uh-huh, been there, she right; racism/sexism no doubt’.
Nothing like a thread hijacking to demonstrate the lack of credibility in an argument.
As for the lawsuit….it points up the drawbacks of incentive and performance appriasal systems. Either Young really didn’t produce and they were keeping her around as a token or she did produce and now they’re backpedaling. None of the info here suggests much detail in terms of the bases for the firm’s appraisal, pro or con. Law firms seem to be replicating the CEO culture of inflating rewards at the top while creating an easily exploitable underclass who do the actual work.
Obama appears to be a war criminal.
lottakatz,
Yeah, you came in after the troll scrubbing.
As far as Obama and war crimes goes, keep in mind he inherited one giant war crime in Iraq. While I am severely disappointed in the way he’s conducted himself on several fronts, the only thing at this time I think can be argued as a war crime on Obama’s part is not rapidly shutting down Gitmo. However, that is also tempered by the reality that it is a situation not as easy to untangle as it may appear on the surface and it too was inherited from Bush Co. Should he drop the ball on this or any other issue, I’ll be first in line demanding his prosecution as well, but I’m willing to let him try to remedy the situation first. The crimes proper are in instigation of an illegal war and formalized torture while defecating on the Constitution and our civil rights. In that respect, I am upset Obama hasn’t tossed the Patriot Act out the window yet either. In re Afghanistan and Pakistan, well, those are both legitimate targets and were from 9/11 as was Saudi Arabia. They created and support the terrorists that attacked us and as long as we don’t pall mall kill civilians or use banned weapons, they get exactly and justly what’s coming to them.
Next to torture, the greatest injustice of all from Bush Co. is that Iraq was invaded at all instead of Bush’s buddies in Saudi Arabia – the one’s who really did attack us. There should be troops in Riyadh right now, not Baghdad. Cheney needs to be hanged for that bit of fascism alone. It was fascism – letting corporations decide who we attacked in response to 9/11 is the very portrait of corporatism. Mussolini would have been proud. Cheney should have company on the gallows too in the form of everyone who attended the Secret Energy Task Force. Corporations are ruining the world for their P/E ratios and Obama needs to step to the plate on holding them and their boards accountable for their actions as well as the Neocons proper (Addington, Yoo, Feith, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzo, etc.). And let’s not forget PNAC – the head of this beast. Every signatory of that organizations charter is a traitor – period. Even that moron Dan Quayle who is too stupid to have known what he was getting in to, although ignorance is no excuse for fascism.
Rest assured, Obama gets no free lunch in here despite what the trolls may think. He better get his act together too or some of us will be working just as hard to replace him after one term as we did to get him in office – it just won’t be with a Republican since they seem hell bent on being the official party of Fundamentalist Redneck Crazy. Neither party is enshrined in the Constitution and they had both better get on board with that fact. Because if a Second Revolution comes, it won’t be R vs. D. That’s a myth. The reality will be We the People vs. Anyone In Office (and their corporate masters and graft weasels on K Street). Party affiliation won’t mean squat at that point. Only that you’re a professional politician and it’s time to clean house. The Dems get one chance to fix this while at the helm, then it’s time for action against both parties should they fail. That’s why I love to see the hardcore Neocons say they hope Obama fails. They should be more concerned with his success than anyone. Obama’s failure means the mobs with torches will be coming for them first. Yah hear that, Rush? Exxon, you listening? Do you get it, Halliburton and Xe? Then again, lack of foresight and arrogance that they will “always be able to control a situation” are hallmarks of fascism and the corporatist mindset.
War crimes trials for Bush Co. and their masters would go a long way to lessening the chance of violent civilian action by restoring the Rule of Law, but avoiding the issue only encourages eventual revolution. Obama’s walking a tightrope. I’d like to see him make it across the chasm personally, but I’m ready either way.
It would seem to me that if a firm set up multi-track career systems and minorities and women were concentrated in the dead end, low pay track a case could be made for systemic discrimination in hiring if the 2nd tier employee group could show little difference in entrance qualifications between the minorities and women in the non-partner track and entrance qualifications for the partner track employees.
I recall reading a couple of EEO decisions that found that promotion criterion was set up so subjectively that even though it was not in itself discriminatory it could give rise to subconscious discriminatory impulses and the promotion record was such that the effect among similarly qualified individuals was discriminatory. The plaintiff’s won their cases.
While that’s not on point the governing principle is similar. A two tier system that concentrates women and minorities in the lower tier has a discriminatory effect if tier selection criteria (for hiring purposes) is subjective enough to give rise to subconscious discriminatory impulses and produces discriminatory results.
Regards the “trolls” calling Obama a war criminal: Not yet, but he could easily be depending on how he and his Administration act regarding the pursuit (or not) the lawbreakers in the Bush Administration. I recall even Professor Turley argue on Olbermann that there is a legal requirement to not impede any investigation of the previous Administrations wrongdoing (regarding torture at least), to do so is to be an “accessory” to those crimes. Doesn’t the same principle apply to a failure to pursue investigation? I don’t see this strictly as a trolls’ argument.
There are though a lot of talking-points trolls that visit. I suspect that some troll postings are removed before I get to read the thread so I get to see now out-of-context replies. Those replies may contain statements that I am inclined to disagree with on some level but were entirely appropriate in the original thread.
Peace now, you are puzzling. Are you a conservative calling Obama a liar if he can’t accomplish making the world perfect in the next month, or are you a developmentally challenged person?
‘FRIEND’ OF BIDEN’S DAUGHTER SHOPPING TAPE OF HER DOING COCAINE
A “friend” of Vice President Joseph Biden’s daughter, Ashley, is attempting to hawk a videotape that he claims shows her snorting cocaine at a house party this month in Delaware.
OH OH.. OK, WE ARE CANCELING THE BIG WASHINGTON MARCH UNTIL THIS SETTLES OUT:
Let’s all have a happy sit in. Has anyone seen the Firm? I don’t care about aff’d action. It should be the best person for the job. You see how it worked when W was put in power.
JOIN TENS OF THOUSANDS TO PROTEST BARACK OBAMA’S ILLEGAL INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF AFGANISTAN!
SUNDAY APRIL 5, 2009 THE WORLD WILL IGNITE WITH PROTESTS AGAINST BARACK OBAMA! JOIN US AT THE NATIONS CAPITAL!
RACHAEL MADDOW WILL BE PRESENT AS WILL HOLLYWOOD STARS, BANDS, AND PROTESTORS WILLING TO STEP FORWARD AND SAVE THIS COUNTRY.
IT IS NOT TOO LATE TO SEND BARACK OBAMA THE MESSAGE THAT IT WAS US THAT GOT HIM ELECTED AND IT IS US THAT CAN DESTROY HIS PRESIDENCY IF HE CONTINUES ON THIS BUSH LIKE AGENDA!
HE STILL HAS NOT COMMITTED TO REMOVING TROOPS FROM IRAQ.
HE STILL HAS NOT SENT AN OLIVE BRANCH OF PEACE TO OUR FRIENDS IN CUBA, NORTH KORE, IRAN, SYRIA, OR EGYPT.
BARACK OBAMA WAS A PHONY IN THE ELECTION IF HE DOES NOT IMMEDIATLEY DISMANTLE THE UNITED STATES MILITARY, CONFISCATE THE WEALTH OF THOSE THAT HAVE DESTROYED THIS COUNTRY, FORCE HOSPITALS TO CARE FOR ALL AT NO COST, AND GUARANTEE WE ALL CAN AFFORD TO EAT AND HAVE SHELTER AND GET A COLLEGE DEGREE WITHOUT HAVING TO GO INTO DEBT TO GET IT.
JOIN US ALL! WE ARE GOING TO SHAKE THIS OBAMA ADMINISTRATION INTO DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY AND CHANGE THIS WORLD INTO SOMETHING WE ALL KNOW IS BETTER!
Carl, Loren, et. al.,
I want to thank you all for your ongoing contribution to this site. It is hard after two months of an intelligent man as President to remember that the country was being run by two traitors and morons who screwed everything up. By your contributions we remember these draft dodging girly men, who got so much support from fools like you as they attempted to destroy our country. Thank you for your service and I recommend massive doses of fish oil to bring your IQ’s up over 80. It’s a wonder that you’re capable of reading, but I bet you have to mouth each word, good job fellas.
Here, Neocon Trolls, a present just for you.
http://www.freepress.org/cartoons.php?strFunc=display&strID=430&strYear=2009&strAuthor=5
According to the frequency and type of posts to this blog, trolls attempting defense or deflection from the criminals in the GOP increase by 90% every time someone mentions putting Bush/Cheney on trial for war crimes.
According to a Gallup poll just released:
People who feel positively about his budget fell from 44% in late February to 39% this week.
People who feel negatively about the budget increased three points to 30% in the same time frame.
raff,
Good to have the real you back after your obvious impostor (whom mespo smacked down on another thread). And I found this –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7969934.stm
All I could think of was, “carl, is that you?”
Enjoy.
Buddha,
Thank you for responding to the ever increasing trolls. For any neocon to suggest that Obama is a war criminal, should be a separate crime in light of their head in the sand approach to Bush/Cheney & Co. Their crime is being too stupid to show themselves in public again.
carl,
You, like your Neocon bosses, don’t understand the concept of war crimes. Obama inherited all of this unconstitutional mess from YOUR BOYS IN BUSH CO. Here, suck on this –
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/world/europe/29spain.html?hp
None of our allies are talking about putting Obama on trial, but they sure are developing a judicial hard on for Bush Co., huh?
Enjoy backing the Nazis, er, Neocons. But don’t try to say you were a “Good American” when the dust settles.
Obama is already guilty of war crimes in Pakistan and Afganistan.
I read a transcript of Mr. Hannan’s words yesterday. Thank you for the YT link. Now he should give a speech specifically on U.S. war crimes.
English,
“pathologically incapable of taking responsibility” rofl
Thanks for the link! Mr. Hannan is my kind of politician – all cowboy and no hat. There may be hope for Great Britain yet.
That Complaint and the attached emails and employment documents points up everything that’s wrong with hourly billing. By forcing lawyers to make minimum billing standards, firms force exaggeration and outright fraud into the attorney-client relationship. No one doubts that documents are an integral part of the litigation process but these staff attorneys are used as sweat shop workers (albeit highly paid ones) to merely code and review documents. I am certain this is not what they envisioned by attending law school. That the group is disproportionately minority raises some questions in my mind.