Maryland Atty Pushes Judge to Grant Discovery in Reverse Discrimination Suit Against King & Spalding
Attorney Sarah Spitalnick, who is white, sought to rebut the law firm's claim that she was not harmed because she never applied for a fellowship program aimed at minorities.
November 14, 2024 at 08:11 PM
4 minute read
What You Need to Know
- A Maryland attorney said her federal lawsuit against King & Spalding should go forward.
- She said she has standing to bring her claim because she suffered an injury “in fact” and it was not “self-inflicted.”
A Maryland attorney said her federal lawsuit against King & Spalding should go forward to “redress the wrong done” by the firm’s “overt” discrimination against her when the firm said a first-year law student program was limited to “ethnically or culturally diverse” or “LGBT” applicants.
Attorney Sarah Spitalnick said in a filing earlier this month opposing the law firm’s Sept. 19 motion to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland that she has standing to bring her claim because she suffered an injury “in fact” and it was not “self-inflicted” despite Spitalnick never applying for the program in 2021.
Spitalnick, who is now an attorney in Baltimore, was a first-year student at the University of Baltimore School of Law in 2021 when she saw an ad on a school job board seeking applications to the law firm’s 1L Summer Associate Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) program.
“At the time of the defendant’s job posting, Ms. Spitalnick met all stated qualifications for the ... position aside from the requirement that she ‘must have’ an ‘ethnically or culturally diverse background or be a member of the LGBT community,’" her Nov. 8 filing stated.
“Whether or not King and Spalding believed it was promoting ‘diversity,’ the effect of its advertisement was to send a particularly toxic message to young lawyers: success in the profession is not a question of merit, but a function of skin color and sexual orientation, immutable characteristics that should neither constitute a bar nor a boon in the pursuit of a legal career,” the court document stated.
The document noted King & Spalding’s motion to dismiss was based on its argument that Spitalnick's claim lacked subject matter jurisdiction and failed to state a claim under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
However, the document noted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a ruling that stated “there is reasonable cause to believe that [Spitalnick] was discriminated against because of her race and sexual orientation when she was deterred from applying for the summer associate position in violation of Title VII.”
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, sexual orientation and gender identity, among other factors.
The document stated that Spitalnick suffered an “injury in fact”—despite the law firm’s claims she was deterred from applying for the LCLD position and therefore never submitted an application for the position.
“This claim ignores the EEOC determination letter finding expressly that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that Ms. Spitalnick was the victim of racial and sexual discrimination because she was deterred from applying for the LCLD position,” the document stated.
“Put differently, the absence of an application is evidence of discrimination, not the other way around. Defendant ignores well-established law that plaintiffs who are deterred from applying for employment because of the humiliation of certain rejection have standing to pursue employment discrimination letters.”
It also stated King & Spalding “ignores both the EEOC finding, which at an absolute minimum, indicates there is a factual question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss, as well as the applicable Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent stating that, where an application would constitute a ‘futile gesture,’ a victim of discrimination need not go through the motions of submitting a pointless application to have standing and to be able to recover on the merits.
“Despite this precedent, defendant urges the court to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that plaintiff never actually applied for the job at issue, claiming that effectively deterring a candidate from applying for a position on racial and sexual lines operates to deprive the deterred candidate of her day in court."
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 AllSupreme Court of Georgia Accepts 2 Petitions for Voluntary Discipline With 2-Year Suspension, 1 Voluntary Surrender of License
Judge Sets Early 2025 Trial for Ex-Prosecutor Charged With Meddling in Ahmaud Arbery Investigation
3 minute readJudge Admits to Judicial Misconduct as Charged, but Denies Willful Misconduct
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
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