Biglaw

Biglaw Associate Fired For Denouncing Gaza Bombing Loses Key Part Of Lawsuit

No, law firms don't have to employ you if they disagree with your speech.

By  
on

Israel and Palestine. Gaza. Global war.Jinan Chehade moved to Chicago to begin her new job as a Foley & Lardner associate, but the firm abruptly revoked her offer following public statements she made over the situation in Gaza. After Chehade spoke publicly at a rally, both denouncing the October 7 Hamas attacks while blaming Israeli government policy for the conditions that motivated the violence, the firm called her in to grill her over her past comments and affiliations. Foley would revoke her offer the day before she was set to start. She then sued the firm on a number of grounds, including a claim that the firm should be held accountable for backing out of its promised job offer.

Yesterday, the court dismissed this claim without prejudice and gave her an opportunity to amend. Her civil rights claims remain.

In the immediate aftermath of October 7, more than a few lawyers faced career consequences for speaking out about the situation. That said, the range of comments eliciting dismissals varied wildly. A future Winston associate lost their job for characterizing the attacks as “necessary,” while Davis Polk revoked offers to students just for belonging to groups that placed ultimate responsibility for the crisis on Israeli government policy while denouncing the Hamas attacks specifically. Sullivan & Cromwell pledged to conduct background checks to root out applicants involved in the campus protests of the subsequent humanitarian crisis. Other firms signed a letter blaming law schools — a deeply cynical stunt that made a mockery of the very real problem of rising antisemitism in this country — prompting a thoughtful response by a Sidley associate explaining that antisemitism and critiquing Israeli government policy are two very different things that firms should not casually conflate. So she got fired.

These responses are all within the rights of the firms. They’re at will employers and they’re under no obligation to employ someone whose speech they disagree with. While there may be substantial daylight between calling terrorism “necessary” and joining a protest over an ongoing humanitarian crisis, firms don’t to need to justify where they choose to draw the line.

Which is what Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman confirmed in Chehade’s case:

Plaintiff offers no evidence to support a finding that Defendant’s promise of support was an unambiguous promise to not penalize Plaintiff for any actions she took as long as she believed they were in support of her Arab Muslim heritage. To conclude otherwise would mean that Plaintiff would have a “get out of jail free card” for any action that she took, even if it violated Defendant’s values and policies, due to her status as an Arab Muslim woman.

While the promissory estoppel claim failed, Chehade’s civil rights claims survive. In the complaint, Chehade alleged that the firm spent time grilling her about her father’s job with a mosque, an allegation that, if true, suggests Foley’s decision was at least somewhat contingent on her racial and religious background as opposed to the four corners of any specific statement. Once a conversation with human resources gets into status as a Muslim it raises entirely different issues than just separating the firm from discourse it doesn’t like.

Sponsored

For now, Chehade has 21 days to replead the promissory estoppel claim if she wants. Otherwise, the case marches on with the civil rights claims.

Earlier: Biglaw Firm Sued For Revoking Offer To Arab-American Who Condemned Gaza Bombing
Davis Polk Rescinds Offers To T14 Law School Students For Their Controversial Statements On Israel
Attorney Warns Biglaw’s Antisemitism Letter Makes Lawyers Worry About Getting Fired, Gets Fired
NYU Law SBA President Brands Hamas Attacks As ‘Necessary’
Elite Biglaw Firm Adopts Tougher Background Checks For New Hires Amid Campus Protests

Sponsored

1 2Next »

Topics

, , , ,