Ex-Winston Partner Defeats Arbitration Bid in Gender Bias Suit
A California appeals court reversed a finding that would have forced Constance Ramos' gender bias allegations against Winston & Strawn into arbitration. Now the case will move forward publicly, in court.
November 06, 2018 at 02:38 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Siding with former Winston & Strawn income partner Constance Ramos, a California appellate panel has set aside an arbitration agreement that would have kept a gender bias case against the law firm out of court.
A three-judge panel at the first appellate district of the California Court of Appeal held on Friday that an arbitration pact Winston had tried to enforce as part of its partnership agreement was “unconscionable” and that the entire arbitration pact should be considered void. The decision comes more than a year after Ramos, an intellectual property specialist who now works at her own firm, Akira IP, lodged the suit, saying she faced gender discrimination and retaliation at Winston.
Ramos alleged that she was unfairly passed over for work and effectively forced out of the firm. Her suit is one of several brought in recent years by women partners at large law firms who claim they have been paid and treated unfairly compared with their male counterparts.
Previously, a trial court in San Francisco had sided with Winston on the arbitration issue, finding that Ramos had signed a partnership agreement that governed her claims against the firm. But the appeals court ruling on Friday reached the opposite result.
Among several specific issues the court had with the arbitration pact, the appeals court wrote that provisions in the agreement requiring Ramos to share in the costs of arbitration and pay her own legal fees were both unconscionable terms. The court also faulted Winston's agreement for its confidentiality provisions, which, the panel found, would restrict Ramos' ability to conduct informal interviews, as opposed to formal depositions, of potential witnesses in the case.
“Because it requires her to keep 'all aspects of the arbitration' secret, she would be in violation if she attempted to informally contact or interview any witnesses outside the formal discovery process,” the court wrote. “Such a limitation would not only increase Ramos's costs unnecessarily by requiring her to conduct depositions rather than informal interviews, it also defeats the purpose of using arbitration as a simpler, more time-effective forum for resolving disputes.”
Another portion of the appeals court's analysis focused on a key issue that will likely remain at the heart of the case as it moves forward: whether Ramos is effectively an employee because she was a nonequity “income” partner at Winston.
The appeals court stopped short of answering that question. But it also determined there was enough of a power imbalance with respect to the arbitration agreement that it should be analyzed under a 2000 state Supreme Court decision, Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, which found against arbitration agreements that limit the scope of an employee's remedies under the employment laws relevant to the case.
Here, the appeals court wrote, the wording of Winston's arbitration pact would “preclude the arbitrators from providing remedies that would otherwise be available in a court of law” under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and other laws invoked in Ramos' gender bias suit.
“The record demonstrates Winston was in a superior bargaining position vis-à-vis Ramos akin to that of an employer-employee relationship, and there is no evidence in this record that Ramos had an opportunity to negotiate the arbitration provision,” the appeals court wrote. The court later concluded, “As the express language of the agreement prevents Ramos from obtaining remedies under her statutory claims, the provision is unenforceable.”
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe partner Lynne Hermle, no stranger to defending high-profile gender bias cases in the Bay Area, argued the appeal for Winston. She was not immediately available for comment on Tuesday.
Ramos' lawyer, Noah Lebowitz, who runs his own employee rights firm in Berkeley, said in an interview on Tuesday that he and his client were very happy with the appeals court's decision.
“All my client had sought from the beginning of this case is to have the ability to bring her claims to a jury after discovery and with all remedies available to her,” Lebowitz said. “We think it is important that claims of pay equity and equal pay are brought in open court because the wage gap will never be closed and eliminated unless there is a public reckoning of the situation.”
Read More:
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
© 2024 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 AllFrom 'Confusing Labyrinth' to Speeding 'Roller Coaster': Uncertainty Reigns in Title IX as Litigators Await Second Trump Admin
6 minute readNew Class Action Points to Fears Over Privacy, Abortions and Fertility
Trending Stories
- 1State Attorney General Faces Federal Courtroom Test Over Crypto Mining Ban
- 2The Corporate Transparency Act: One Year Later With Deadline Looming
- 3Getting Cameras in Federal Courts Will Take More than Logic
- 4Emerson Electric Opens Wallet to Reward New CLO for Fast Start
- 5Kirkland Hires Real Estate Finance Partners in New York
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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