Law Firms
Ex-Associate Sues Nixon Peabody Claiming Discrimination—and Contract Breach
Posted Jan 13, 2009 7:27 PM CST
By Martha Neil
A former associate of Nixon Peabody has filed an employment discrimination suit against the international law firm, saying that he was fired last year because of his gender, race and national origin.
Henry Har contends in a Los Angeles Superior Court complaint (PDF) filed last month that he was subjected to homophobic taunting and ridicule after he transferred from the San Francisco office of Nixon Peabody to its Los Angeles office, reports the National Law Journal.
His suit also seeks compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful discharge, contending that his firing violated public policy and that that the firm's "conduct, words, custom, policies, oral assurances and past practices" created an implied covenant that he would only be terminated for good cause.
A successful member of the public finance group in San Francisco, Har was transferred to Los Angeles to help expand the firm's public finance practice there, according to the lawsuit. But once he started working in Los Angeles it became clear that Har was never going to fit in with what he describes in the suit as an office culture in which racist, sexist and homophobic comments were commonplace.
Among his claims, Har contends that a Los Angeles partner once asked him, as the legal publication puts it, "whether an office administrator, who is openly gay, gave Har oral sex." He also alleges that "the partner responsible for his firing called him a 'thin-skinned mama's boy,' " the NLJ notes.
Har was fired on Feb. 22, 2008, based on what the lawsuit describes as a "completely false" accusation made by a fellow attorney that Har had "bull-rushed" him at a firm-sponsored happy hour after a verbal disagreement about whether Har had moved the fellow attorney's jacket. (Har says he explained at the time that he had carefully folded the jacket and placed it next to him, and contends that the fellow attorney had a history of emotional outbursts.)
The law firm responded to a request for comment from the National Law Journal with a written statement saying that Nixon Peabody doesn't discuss pending litigation but "is committed to providing an open and inclusive workplace" and "resolutely denies Mr. Har's charge of discrimination and will vigorously respond to it in court."
Har, who is a graduate of New York University School of Law, is now an associate at Holland & Knight in San Francisco.
His suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees, among other relief.
Hat tip: Above the Law.
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Reed Smith Will Ask Nonequity Partners to Pony Up Possibly 15% of Pay
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in E-Mail Cost 2 Their Jobs
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
B. McLeod
Jan 13, 2009 10:01 PM CST
Another “associate” suing the ex-firm. It would be great fun if every “associate” in California and New York decided to do this. I may have to invest in popcorn futures.
Flag this comment
Older Guy
Jan 16, 2009 8:37 AM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
LawBoy
Jan 16, 2009 8:55 AM CST
But he obviously is a “thin-skinned mama’s boy”. What client wants to be represented by such scaredy pants whiner who willl run to the corner the moment the opposing side begins to become hostile. In any case, he’s asserting his firing was due to gender, race and national origin, which would be wrong if it were true, but all the examples in the article of “hurtful behavior” relate to his chosen sexual lifestyle. So why does he think that he has a cause of action here? Oh, I’m sorry, he’s one of those IIED cause of action filers… move on, nothing to see here.
Flag this comment
Laura
Jan 16, 2009 10:13 AM CST
I don’t think homophobes should be admitted to the bar. Full stop.
Flag this comment
Diamond Jim
Jan 16, 2009 10:34 AM CST
Come on Laura-Please. I agree with LawBoy I would not want sissy-britches representing my clients. This is a rough-tough competitive business where clients expect lawyers to vigorously represent them and return value for the fees charged. If you have to spend time worrying about whether some associate will be complaining about “hurtful behaviour” it can only detract from effective representation.
Flag this comment
LawBoy
Jan 16, 2009 10:37 AM CST
@ Laura: I love when the libs stifle freedom of speech and expression whenever it suits their agenda. Actually, I’m for barring vegetarians from the bar. It serves the purpose of indirectly barring hippies, as well.
Flag this comment
JuneEagle
Jan 16, 2009 11:06 AM CST
I am not for barring anyone from the bar. I am for declassifying alcoholism as a disease and disbarring alcoholics ... but I digress. If there is a pattern of discriminatory acts, I think that a lawsuit is warranted. Not being willing to accept a hostile work environment and bogus-perhaps retaliatory-firing do not make one a “sissy”; it in fact shows the fight that homosexuals are stereotyped , sadly in these comments, as lacking.
ps Not a hippie. If I lived in California, I would have voted “Yes” on proposition 8, and am greatly annoyed by its label as PropH8te.
Flag this comment
jp
Jan 16, 2009 11:07 AM CST
I didn’t read the complaint, but based on the article, there isn’t anything “racist” mentioned.
So the office administrator in LA is “openly gay” but the atmosphere is “homophobic”?
He’s working at Holland & Knight. Where are the damages?
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Jan 16, 2009 11:53 AM CST
Responding to jp—Presumably the damages are for lost wages between termination and employment at the new firm, the difference between compensation at the old firm and lower compensation at the new firm, emotional distress and, perhaps,punitive damages. II’d guess the lawsuit was filed in San Francisco, where juries dislike homophobes nearly as much as Nixon Peabody’s L.A. office allegedly disliked homosexuals.
This is the 21st century. Anyone stupid enough to openly display homophobia and harass employees at work on homophobic grounds deserved to get hammered.
Flag this comment
B. McLeod
Jan 16, 2009 12:24 PM CST
Is this a generalized fear of other people? I have often wondered what causes some folks to move off to places like Wyoming and Alaska to live as hermits. Maybe this homophobia accounts for it.
Flag this comment
LawBoy
Jan 16, 2009 2:39 PM CST
Comment removed by moderator.
Flag this comment
Harold the Hermit
Jan 16, 2009 2:43 PM CST
Reporting from my redoubt in the mountains outside Morgan,Utah I can state with certainty that animals that fail to engage in reproductive activity with others of the species of the opposite gender soon disappear from the scene.If this pattern of behavior spreads their will be no 22nd century.
Flag this comment
Kristin
Jan 16, 2009 4:10 PM CST
@ June Eagle - it’s called Prop H(8) because it was a direct assault on the civil rights of gay and lesbian people, for no reason. And to LawBoy, Older Guy and the Hermit - grow up.
Flag this comment
Law Boy
Jan 16, 2009 4:35 PM CST
Gay people do have the right to marry, just like every normal heterosexual person has the right to marry. In any case, marriage is not a constitutional right. I don’t understand why these supposedly intelligent people out in the land of fruits and nuts can’t understand that it’s a state right determined by the will of the people. Oooh… ohhh… doesn’t that phrase sound familiar (ala election ‘00). How conveniently the liberals now ignore the will of the people. And the will is: “Back in the closet.” How’s that for a grown-up response?
Flag this comment
AndytheLawyer
Jan 16, 2009 6:30 PM CST
As for gay marriage, the solution is simple. If you don’t want a spouse of the same gender as yours, don’t marry one.
Flag this comment
BklynLawyer
Jan 17, 2009 2:14 AM CST
LawBoy’s assertion that “Gay people do have the [same] right to marry, just like every normal heterosexual person…” is just ridiculous and ignores the reality of what marriage means in our society & culture and of its importance to individual autonomy. Freedom to marry means little without the freedom to marry the person of one’s choice. Your argument is virtually identical to those made in favor of the antimiscegenation laws of the mid-20th century which declared (with the full will of the VAST majority of the people of all races) that members of interracial couples had the same marriage right as everyone else, as they construed that right to mean “marry someone of the same race only.” I’m astounded you haven’t learned much of the invidious nature of dicsrimination with a full 60 yrs of caselaw to educate you. And for over a century the highest courts in the US & much of Western culture have held marriage to be a fundamental civil & human right, so I don’t know where you got the idea that it’s not a constitutional right. EVen if only a atate right, equal protection applies to everything the state does, including all rights, privileges, benefits, etc. Your oobvous prejudice aside, I’ll never understand why one would describe being offended at purposely offensive remarks/behavior as “sissy”. The behavior described in the NLJ article, if true, is completely unrpofessional and I’m sure violated the state of CA’s employment discrimination laws. If that’s the case, then let the man have his day in court.
Flag this comment
LawBoy
Jan 17, 2009 6:46 AM CST
@BklynLawyer:
Would liberal whackjobs support laws legalizing polygamous or incestual marriage if consent is given among all individuals? The sad thing is that they would because liberalism is a mental disease. Second, gays cannot produce children between themselves. It is in the state interest to confirm the relationship between man and woman for purposes of creating a familial environment in which children can be conceived, brought up in, and made into productive citizens. Yes, Iit must be acknowledged that this social policy intent is not evident in all cases, but it holds true for the majority of cases. This cannot be said for gay relationships for not even one couple (and no, the petty adoption argument does not count unless you can show me that over 50% of gays are adopting).. The gay restrictions can therefore not be equated to the interracial era restricitons that were wrongfully and irrationally imposed. The state has spoken and the will of the people must be followed. QED.
Flag this comment
Rebecca
Jan 17, 2009 12:59 PM CST
The comments on this message board, supposedly written by my fellow well-educated members of the bar, illustrate the culture which led to this lawsuit in the first place. To the comments about “freedom of speech”—if you have the freedom to be racist and homophobic, I do not see why you want to stifle those who speak out against you. Do only you deserve free speech? Are you saying the First Amendment does not protect those who oppose you? Or are you simply afraid that you might have to defend your position and you cannot? I hope he socks Nixon for all they are worth. Maybe then the legal profession will clean up its act.
Flag this comment
Florela
Jan 18, 2009 1:15 AM CST
Henri Har is Suing!
Flag this comment
BobLaw
Jan 18, 2009 1:24 AM CST
I happen to agree with him. If he was harassed by personel at his job, then why not hold them accountable? This does not seem to be just another “IIED” case. Give the guy some credit.
Flag this comment
George Sly
Jan 18, 2009 11:05 AM CST
I tend to agree with Rebecca and Bob Law. Many of the above comments are juvenile and if you made them in the office would either get you fired or sued.
I do not know the truth about Mr. Har’s allegations, he will have to prove them in court If he can prove his allegations, he will win and Nixon Peabody will deserve to pay whatever damages are awarded. In case anyone forgot, we’re lawyers this is what we do. We fight our battles in court.
Flag this comment
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.