Quinn Emanuel Loses Early Bid to Throw Out Race Bias Suit
U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York said she was “surprised” that Quinn “attempted to cast the use of the N-word as a poor attempt at humor or a bad pun."
March 12, 2018 at 03:45 PM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on New York Law Journal
Refusing to dismiss a former secretary's discrimination complaint against Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, a Manhattan federal judge said the plaintiff had alleged a “continuous course” of discriminatory conduct and also criticized Quinn's characterization of a racial slur in the complaint.
U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni of the Southern District of New York said she was “surprised” that Quinn “attempted to cast the use of the N-word as a poor attempt at humor or a bad pun. Remarks such as those are unacceptable in a civilized conversation.” She added that when they happen in a workplace, particularly when they come from a supervisor, “not only are they unacceptable, they can be a basis for civil liability.”
However, Caproni, who denied Quinn's motion to dismiss the suit, said she was skeptical about the claims surviving the summary judgment stage.
Spencer Marin, a former floating secretary who left Quinn in 2015, sued the litigation firm last August, alleging race discrimination and a hostile workplace as well as retaliation. Marin claimed that he was subjected to racial slurs by a trial logistics director during the high-profile 2014 Apple v. Samsung patent trial.
Marin asserted that the firm's director of trial logistics, Yllen Cruz, called a black staff member “a re-nigger” after the staff member said she had second thoughts about a previous offer to share her food during the 2014 trial in San Jose, California. Marin, who is black, claims he met with Cruz afterward to complain about the remark and was sent back to New York as a result.
Marin's complaint also points to other remarks by Cruz, including allegedly telling the plaintiff he was “not black enough” and asking the plaintiff whether he had ever been arrested.
Quinn moved to dismiss the lawsuit in September. The firm argued that “while Mr. Marin's revised allegations allege a single incident where Mr. Marin heard another secretary jokingly use a racial slur with another employee, the amended complaint is otherwise devoid of allegations which demonstrate hostility or discrimination of any kind, much less conduct that is pervasive or severe.”
At oral argument on March 9, Caproni told Quinn partner Marc Greenwald that in reading the firm's papers, “I was baffled by the description of this as a joke. I just don't understand the humor. I don't understand how someone thought it was humorous. I don't understand why Quinn Emanuel is taking the position that it was a joke.”
Greenwald told the judge the firm doesn't “find it humorous and we don't think it's a good joke.” He said it was the plaintiff's complaint that cited Marin's own email referring to an “'N-word' joke.”
“That's his words. I'm not characterizing it. We don't like it and we wish it had never been said. But even he perceived it at the time as a joke and it's accurately reflected in the complaint,” Greenwald said. “Even if he proved that the unappreciated N-word joke was said at a dinner, that simply is not severe enough to change the plaintiff's conditions of employment.”
Greenwald argued it does not meet the hostile work environment standard, and it's not retaliation to take an employee out of a position where he felt uncomfortable.
Caproni shot back at Greenwald's arguments that the complaint doesn't sufficiently allege retaliation. “It's just happenstance that he got sent back right after he complained?” Caproni said. “It's humiliating. No?”
Arguing for the plaintiff, plaintiff's attorney Lucas Buzzard, an associate at Joseph & Kirschenbaum, said the N-word was “uttered by a supervisor in his presence and in the presence of all her other employees.” He added, “That word is so loaded that it simply cannot be said that it's a tasteless pun or harmless comment.”
At the March 9 oral argument, Caproni ruled from the bench, saying it was a close case but that she was denying Quinn's dismissal motion. “Far from being a single isolated instance, as defendant claims, the use of the N-word was the end of a continuous course of conduct. Importantly, the stream of offensive comments allegedly came from plaintiff's supervisor,” Caproni said.
Caproni added that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that no single act can more quickly alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment than the use of a racial epithet by a supervisor in the presence of subordinates.
However, Caproni said the complaint does not allege offensive racial conduct outside of the three-week trial period. “I'm somewhat skeptical that the plaintiff will be able to prove that the complained-of conduct was sufficiently pervasive to survive a summary judgment motion,” Caproni said. “The amended complaint states a claim for hostile work environment, but just barely.”
Turning to Marin's retaliation claim, Caproni said Marin's allegation that he was kicked off the San Jose trial team and sent back to New York shortly after complaining about Cruz's racial remarks “alone is sufficient to state a claim for retaliation.” That said, if Quinn Emanuel is right and this is just separating two employees, it may well not survive summary judgment, the judge said.
“Time will tell whether plaintiff's claims can withstand summary judgment,” she added, ordering the parties to complete discovery by early June.
In an interview, Buzzard, the plaintiff's attorney, said, “we're on the road” where a single use of the N-word by a supervisor is enough to state a claim for a hostile work environment. Maimon Kirschenbaum, a partner in his firm, said “it's shocking” Quinn “would mount the defense” that the use of the N-word was “some kind of small joke.”
But in a brief interview, Greenwald, the Quinn partner, again referred to his explanation in court, where he told the judge that the plaintiff's complaint itself referred to an “'N-word' joke.”
“We were gratified by the judge's recognition that these claims are unlikely to survive summary judgment and look forward to being vindicated at summary judgment,” Greenwald said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'If the Job Is Better, You Get Better': Chief District Judge Discusses Overcoming Negative Perceptions During Q&A
Family's Disability Discrimination Suit Cleared to Go Forward Against Six Flags
5 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250