A leading partner at a Toronto law firm has filed a $2.3 million lawsuit against former associates Adrian Jakibchuk, a fourth-year lawyer, and Sarah Diebel, a second-year lawyer, after they accused him of sexual harassment. The firm, Mathews, Dinsdale & Clarke, advises companies on sexual harassment claims and David Cowling, the partner, has sued two junior lawyers, who have left the firm, for defamation and intentional interference with economic relations.
The allegations stem from a firm party held in January 2009 at the Toronto nightclub Cheval.
The case raises an interesting challenge of the intracorporate privilege that protects employees in making such complaints to appropriate officials. Cowling, 43, alleges that Jakibchuk and Diebel, defamed him when they spoke to other partners and staff about his conduct. He charges that the comments were made out of a malicious purpose — an exemption to the qualified privilege in the United States.
The complaint references a 13-page letter written by Diebel to partner Neil Ornstein, which she asked him to keep “confidential and read it in a private place, as I regret to say its subject is unpleasant.”
The letter described partners as being “extremely intoxicated,” engaging in lap dances, and hitting on younger women. The event had an open bar — something that is often discouraged in the United States to avoid dram shop and negligence claims.
Jakibchuk notes that he was asked to confirm the allegations and was asked to meet with Ornstein and Joseph Liberman, another partner at the firm, under confidential guarantees.
The protection of intracorporate privilege can be lost when statements are made for a malicious purpose or to individuals in a corporation who are not tasked with addressing such complaints. In this case, the two young lawyers were clearly speaking to appropriate officials and the only question would be whether the claims were made out of malice — a difficult claim to establish in such a case.
Source: Financial Post.
And this is prophetic or problematic…..
“A leading partner at a Toronto law firm has filed a $2.3 million lawsuit against former associates Adrian Jakibchuk, a fourth-year lawyer, and Sarah Diebel, a second-year lawyer, …”
***********
Pick on somebody your own size there candy man.
Of course he did it. Read between the lines… Nowhere do you see the other partners in the firm saying he didn’t do it. They would be obliged to if he hadn’t done anything.
“And hitting on a woman AND a guy? Even hotter.”
LOL. I dont think he hit on the male associate. The male associate was a witness and just corroborated what the female associate claimed had happened at the party. Careful, Beth, or Cowling might sue you as well! 🙂
Ego’s are very much at work here (no pun intended) and it will be interesting to see where the evidence leads
Cowling is a partner; Diebel was a second-year lawyer. I think it’s inappropriate for people like Cowling who wield power in a firm/company to hit on a much younger, junior employee. It doesn’t make for a good company culture.
If Cowling is “into” hitting on young women–let him do it with women who aren’t employed by his law firm.
P.S. I once worked for a principal who liked to “hit on” young, attractive women who taught at his school. He was definitely a “hands-on” type of boss. Lots of women put up with that type of inappropriate behavior because they are fearful of losing their jobs.
**********
Isabel–
You said: “After reading the actual article, it appears that the female may have been put on notice before the party that she was underperforming work-wise and would be fired unless she improved.”
From the article:
Mr. Cowling’s claim also states that immediately prior to the party, Ms. Diebel was to be placed on a “watch list” because of her work performance, which the claim alleges was improperly communicated to her before the party, and she was subsequently terminated after the report.
Ms. Diebel’s defence claims she “received nothing but positive feedback on her work and she specifically denies … that anyone at MDC told her that her performance was in any way unsatisfactory or that she had been placed on a ‘watch list.’” She maintains she resigned from the firm in June 2009.
It sounds like “he said, she said” to me.
After reading the actual article, it appears that the female may have been put on notice before the party that she was underperforming work-wise and would be fired unless she improved. If it can be proven that she filed the 13 page complaint against the “hottie” as a pre-emptive strike to avoid being fired, or at least muddying up the waters as to why she left, then I think you could show malice on her part.
On the other hand, I don’t know why this partner would sue the two associates after they left unless he really had evidence that they were lying. Why would he air all this dirty laundry which could potentially blow up in his face and really ruin his reputation? The two had already left the firm and had only filed internal complaints about him.
For two junior attorneys to take such a significant step in response to what they allege was sexual harassment means to me that what David Cowling did is likely true. (Of course, this is just my theory; we always need the evidence.) As a junior attorney, you don’t want to draw attention to yourself in this kind of way unless it’s truly something serious, because your own job and reputation could well be in jeopardy after such a stunt.
[That said, David Cowling is kind of hot. Sorry, but it’s true. And hitting on a woman AND a guy? Even hotter.]
Some pretty wild stuff can go on at these “firm retreats” and “parties.” I remember one retreat where a first year female associate dove stark naked from a first floor balcony into the pool below. Tax partners were mooning each other. Once everyone sobered up, all was forgotten. Oh well, enough. I think most firms have stopped these events. Maybe the IRS changed its ruling that the firm could deduct the exhorbitant costs of these “retreats” if the firm conducted a 2 hour seminar on “firm management” or some other boring topic.
Hitting on younger women? Apparently, being a man automatically qualifies as sexual harassment. The frivolousness of that charge is an indication of malicious intent.