Former Ropes associate loses bias and retaliation appeal that cited information passed to blog
A former Ropes & Gray associate who claimed the law firm discriminated and retaliated against him has lost his federal appeal.
In a decision (PDF) on Tuesday, the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against John Ray III, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports. The court upheld summary judgment for the law firm on Ray’s discrimination claim and refused to overturn a jury verdict finding no unlawful retaliation by the firm for Ray’s complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Ray was informed he wouldn’t make partner in 2008 after receiving performance reviews that raised concerns about his relationships with other associates and staffers, the opinion says. Ray was given six months to leave under Ropes & Gray’s “up or out” policy.
Ray sought an extension of the time, and the firm offered two additional months in exchange for an agreement to release all claims. Ray instead said he would file an EEOC complaint unless he received an indefinite extension of his severance or a settlement of $8.5 million. Ray was asked to leave his office, and Ray filed his EEOC complaint the next day. Ropes continued to pay Ray during the severance period, however.
After filing the EEOC complaint, Ray renewed a request for letters of recommendation from two Ropes & Gray partners. The partners did not agree; one said he couldn’t based on Ray’s “groundless claim.”
The EEOC initially found no discrimination occurred, but on reconsideration it found the evidence supported Ray’s retaliation claim. Ray sent the final determination to several politicians, the president of the NAACP, and the dean of Harvard Law School. Above the Law obtained a copy of the letter to the dean and sought comment from Ropes & Gray, which supplied the website with the EEOC’s initial determination letter containing “sensitive and confidential information,” the opinion says.
Above the Law posted the letter, though it redacted the name of one Ropes employee.
Ray’s retaliation suit cited the refusal to provide letters of recommendation and the initial determination letter supplied to Above the Law.
The 1st Circuit found that Ray did not establish error in jury instructions and did not produce evidence that required trial on the discrimination claim. Even if two partners did make racially charged remarks in 2008, as Ray alleged, he didn’t identify any connection between the remarks and the decision not to promote Ray to partner, the court said. According to Ray, one partner asked him to serve as the “token black associate” on a matter, and another partner used the N-word during a story about a Mafia informant.
Ray also alleged that only one black associate had been promoted to partner at Ropes in the history of the firm. “If accurate, it is unfortunate—even troubling—that as of the time of trial Ropes had promoted only a single black lawyer from its associate ranks to partner in the 150-year history of the firm,” the appeals court said. “But the statistic nevertheless fails to imply pretext here.”
A Ropes & Gray spokesman told the National Law Journal the firm is gratified by the decision affirming there is no merit to Ray’s accusation.
Ray’s trial lawyer, Latif Doman, told the National Law Journal that he and his client were considering their options. “We feel it is a substantial setback for the enforcement of the discrimination and retaliation laws, and only further shows why it is difficult if not impossible for racial minorities and women to advance in large law firms,” Doman said.
