Facts

In 1997, Judith Ignacio Quilaton filed an EEOC charge against the predecessor law firm of Reeves & Hanlon, alleging that she was terminated on the basis of pregnancy discrimination. The claim was investigated by the EEOC and the law firm responded to all their requests for information but the claim remained pending as of 1999.

In 1999, two attorneys who worked for the firm of Reeves & Hanlon (Dan Hanlon ("Hanlon") and Colin Greene ("Greene") decided to leave the firm. Another associate attorney who was dating Greene, Nikki Mehrpoo ("Mehrpoo"), anonymously called the EEOC in June of 1999 to report that there was sexual harassment going on at the firm, although she declined to file a charge. Mehrpoo also identified Dan Hanlon and Colin Greene as potential witnesses.

As a result of interviewing Mehrpoo, Hanlon and Green, the EEOC investigator recommended that the case be closed with a finding of cause as to a like and related charge of sex harassment as well as pregnancy discrimination. The EEOC attempted to conciliate the matter, but demanded twice the legal limit to resolve the matter and refused to identify the purportedly "aggrieved individuals." When conciliation failed, the EEOC issued a cause determination in June 2000 and in October 2000 filed suit against the now law firm of Reeves & Associates.

In the interim, Hanlon and Greene opened up their own practice and were involved in litigation against Reeves & Associates for multiple causes of action including interference with contractual relationships, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation of confidential information, violation of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and others. The EEOC was apprised of Hanlon & Greene's litigation with Reeves & Associates but proceeded to prosecute a sex harassment and pregnancy discrimination lawsuit against the firm. After litigation commenced, the EEOC identified nine women who they contended were sexually harassed by the firm's managing partner Robert L. Reeves and three individuals who they contended were discriminated against on the basis of pregnancy.

The defendant filed three separate motions for partial summary judgment, adjudicating each of the claims of the 12 claimants. The court granted summary judgment as to all of the claims and dismissed the case in 2003, awarding the defendant approximately $386,000 in attorneys' fees and costs for having to defend against the meritless claims. The EEOC appealed only the dismissal of six of the 12 claimants, five for sex harassment and only one of the original three for pregnancy. In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit reversed.

Following additional discovery, the case went to trial in October 2005. The EEOC contended that Reeves told "dirty jokes," bumped one employee at the photocopy machine, touched one employee on the buttocks, made "comments of a sexual nature," and fired an employee because she was pregnant. After 10 days of trial, the jury of 10 unanimously returned a verdict in favor of the defendant rejecting each of the claimant's claims of harassment and/or pregnancy discrimination.

The EEOC contended that the Reeves & Hanlon law firms discriminated in employment on the basis of pregnancy as to three employees and that Reeves, the managing partner, had sexually harassed a number of employees at the firm by making jokes of a sexual nature, inappropriate touching, staring in a sexual manner, making comments of a sexual nature, and creating a sexually hostile and abusive work environment for female employees.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied that the managing partner had engaged in any sexual harassment or pregnancy discrimination. The firm had a sexual harassment policy, which was disseminated, and a policy, which provided pregnancy leave benefits to employees.

In the case of Quilaton, who had initiated the claim, the defendant established that she was terminated for poor performance and ultimately the dismissal of her claim was not appealed by the EEOC. In the case of another pregnancy claimant Silva, she had in fact been given pregnancy leave and allowed to return to work. Silva's claim was also rejected on summary judgment. In the case of the remaining pregnancy claimant Saez, the defendant contended that she was a probationary employee, hired to pay off her bill (as a former client of the firm), and was terminated for refusing to do essential functions of her job.

The defendant further contended that the allegations against the firm and the managing partner were false and had been fabricated and orchestrated as a part of Hanlon & Green's efforts to destroy the firm. The defendant alleged that Hanlon & Greene damaged computer files, took client files, engaged upon a campaign to cultivate discontent among the personnel at Reeves & Hanlon, and reported the defendant to the State Bar and the Department of Labor.

The defendant also contended that the EEOC failed to properly investigate claims, lost its file and interview notes, and closed the file without obtaining signed affidavits. The defendant further challenged the credibility of each of the claimants' testimony, alleging that they changed their story during the prosecution of their claims. Two of the sexual harassment claimants were former girlfriend of Hanlon and Greene; a third left Reeves firm and became an employee of Hanlon & Greene.

Result

Defense verdict. The defendant intends to file a motion for attorney's fees.

Other Information

During the pendency of this federal court litigation, the Supreme Court found that Hanlon & Greene were liable to the Reeves law firm for breach of fiduciary duty, theft of trade secrets and interference with prospective economic advantage. Hanlon & Greene appealed and the judgment against them was upheld on appeal, ultimately going to the California Supreme Court, which also found them to have intentionally interfered with the at-will employment of existing employees. In Reeves v. Hanlon (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1140, the Supreme Court reiterated that Hanlon & Greene had purposely engaged in unlawful acts that crippled Reeves' business operations and caused his personnel to quit, and affirmed the trial court's finding that their "unlawful and unethical actions were designed in part to interfere with and disrupt Reeves' relationship with its employees." The jury was allowed to hear evidence of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal's findings.

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

10-0

Length

10 days