EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown.

Filing 61

MEMORANDUM by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Support of motion for miscellaneous relief 60 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit EEOC's requests to admit# 2 Exhibit Sidley's responses to EEOC's requests to admit)(Mulaire, Justin)

EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown. NOV-16-2005 14:34

Case 1:05-cv-00208

GRIPPO

& ELDEN

Document 61-3

Filed 04/03/2006

312

Page 1 of 11

558

1195

P.02

Doc. 61 Att. 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,

) ) ) ) )

Case No.

05 CV

0208
Zagel

Honorable

James

v.

) )

Magistrate Judge Ashman

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN

& WOOD LLP,

) )

Defendant.

)

~O

SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP'S EEOC'S FIRST ~OUEST f..OR ADMISSIONS

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP ("Sidley") responds to Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (the "EEOC") First Request for Admissions (the "Requests") as follows:

RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS
Subject to the General Objections set forth in Appendix A and further specific objections, and without waiver thereof, Sidley responds to the EEOC's Requests as set forth below. The following response reflect Sidley's current knowledge and the result of investigation conducted to date. Sidley expressJy reserves the right to amend or supplement its responses as may be necessary or appropriate, including the right to assert additional general or specific objections to the EEOC's Requests.

77249v5

Dockets.Justia.com

NOU-16-2005

14:3 GRIPP Case4 1:05-cv-00208O

& ELDEN

Document 61-3

Filed 04/03/2006

312 5 2 1 11 Page 58 of 195

P.03

Request for Admission No.1: Admit that the members of the Executive Committee of Sidley & Austin in years from 1990 through 2000 were selected by partners holding a majority of percentages. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the use of the undefined term "selected" as vague

and ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, Sidley admits that, in the years 1990-2000, members of the Executive Committee were designated in the manner consistent with the applicable Sidley Partnership Agreement, which provides, in part: ''The Executive Committee shall consist of such individual lawyers

. . . as may from time to time be designated by Partners

then holding a majority of all Percentages." (See, e.g. Bates Nos. SAOO0293; SAOO0387.) Request for Admission No.2: Admit that in the years from 1995 through 2000 individuals working at Sidley & Austin with the title partner who were not members of the Management or Executive Committees did not vote on the selection of members of the Management or Executive Committees. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the use of the undefined terms "working" and

"selection" as vague and ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, Sidley admits that, in the years 1995-2000, members of the Management and Executive Committees were designated or appointed in accordance with the applicable Sidley Partnership Agreement, which provides in part: "the Executive Committee shall consist of such individual lawyers . . . as may from time to time be designated by Partners then holding a majority of all Percentages," and that "[tJhe Executive Committee shall appoint a Management Committee" (See e.g., Bates Nos. SAOO0293; SAOO0387). Therefore, those partners who were not members of the Management or Executive Committees did not vote on the designation of members of the Executive Committee or appointment of the members of the Management Committee.

2 17249v5

NOV-16-2005 Case 5 14:3 1:05-cv-00208O GRIPP

& ELDEN Document 61-3

Filed 04/03/2006

Page558 of1195 3 11 312

P.04

Request for Admission No.3: Admit that in the years from 1995 through 2000 all new members of the Executive Committee at Sidley & Austin were selected by the Executive Committee. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the use of the undefined term "selected" as vague

and ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, see Response to Request No.1. Request for Admission No.4: Admit that in the years from 1995 through 2000 all new members of the Management Committee at Sidley & Austin were selected by the Executive Committee. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the use of the undefined term "selected" as vague

and ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, Sidley admits that, in the years 1995-2000, all new members of the Management Committee were appointed by the Executive Committee, consistent with the applicable Sidley Partnership Agreement, which provides in part: "[t]he Executive Committee shall appoint a Management Committee." (See, e.g., Bates Nos.
SAOOO293, SAOO0387.) (See, e.g., Bates Nos. SAOOO292, SAOOO387.)

Request for Admission No.5: Admit that in the years from 1990 through 1995 individuals working at Sidley & Austin with the title partner who were not members of the Management or Executive Committees did not vote on the selection of members of the Management or Executive Committees. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the use of the undefined terms "working" and

"selection" as vague and ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, Sidley admits that, in the years 1990-1995 members of the Management and Executive Committees were designated or appointed in accordance with the applicable Sidley Partnership Agreement, which provides in part: "the Executive Committee shall consist of such individual lawyers

. . . as may from time to

time be designated by Partners then holding a majority of all Percentages," and that "[t]he Executive Committee shall appoint a Management Committee" (See e.g., Bates Nos. SAOOO293; SAOOO387). Therefore, those partners who were not members of the Management or Executive

3
77249vS

NOV-16-2005 Ca:351:05-cv-00208 14 se GRIPPO

& ELDEN Document

61-3

Filed 04/03/2006

312 554 Page 8

1 95 of111

P.05

Committees did not vote on the designation of members of the Executive Committee or appointment of the members of the Management Committee. Request for Admission No.6: Admit that in the years from 1990 through 1995 all new members of the Executive Committee at Sidley & Austin were selected by the Executive Committee. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the use of the undefined term "selected" as vague

and ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, see Response to Request No.1. Request for Admission No.7: Admit that in the years from 1990 through 1995 all new members of the Management Committee at Sidley & Austin were selected by the Executive Committee. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the use of the undefined term "selected" as vague

and ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, Sidley admits that, in the years 1990-1995, all new members of the Management Committee were appointed by the Executive Committee, consistent with the applicable Sidley Partnership Agreement, which provides in part: "[t]he Executive Committee shall appoint a Management Committee." (See, e.g., Bates Nos.
SAOO0293, SAOO0387.) (See e.g., Bates Nos. SAOO0292, SAOO0387.)

Request for Admission No.8: Admit that in the year[s] 1995 through 2000 individuals working at Sidley & Austin with the title partner who were not members of the Management or Executive Committee did not vote on whether to amend Sidley & Austin's Partnership Agreement. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the undefined term "working" as vague and

ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, Sidley admits that, in the years 1995-2000, many partners who w~re not members of the Management or Executive Committees were consulted regarding, and provided input for, proposed amendments to Sidley's Partnership Agreement, but did not vote on whether to amend Sidley's Partnership Agreement.

4
77249v5

NOV-16-2005

14 se GRIPP Ca:35 1:05-cv-00208O & ELDEN Document 61-3

Filed 04/03/2006

312 5 8 1 95 Page55 of111

P.06

Request for Admission No.9:

Admit that in the years from 1995 through 2000

the Executive Committee approved amendments to Sidley & Austin's Partnership Agreement.

RESPON~E:

Sidley admits that, in the years 1995-2000, the Executive

Committee, in accordance with the applicable Sidley Partnership Agreement, approved amendments to Sidley's Partnership Agreement. Reauest for Admission No. 10: Admit that in the years 1990 through 1995 individuals working at Sidley & Austin with the title partner who were not members of the Management or Executive Committee did not vote on whether to amend Sidley & Austin's Partnership Agreement. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the undefined term "working" as vague and

ambiguous. Notwithstanding that objection, Sidley admits that, in the years 1990-1995, many partners who were not members of the Management or Executive Committees were consulted regarding, and provided input for proposed amendments to Sidley's Partnership Agreement, but did not vote on whether to amend Sidley's Partnership Agreement. Request for Admission No. 11: Admit that in the years from 1990 through 1995 the Executive Committee approved amendments to Sidley & Austin's Partnership Agreement. RESPONSE: Sidley admits that, in the years 1990-1995, the Executive

Committee, in accordance with the applicable Sidley Partnership Agreement, approved amendments to Sidley's Partnership Agreement. Request for Admission No. 12: Admit that in the years from 1995 through 2000, Sidley & Austin's Executive Committee admitted additional persons as Partners without approval from partners not on Executive Committee. RESPONSE: Sidley denies that it admitted additional persons to the partnership

without approval from partners who were not members of the Executive Committee, and further states that through practice group and administrative committee meetings, among others, as well as through personal meetings with members of the Executive Committee, partners who were not

5
77249vS

NOV-16-2005

GRIPPO 14ase 1:05-cv-00208 C :35

& ELDEN

Document 61-3

Filed 04/03/2006

312

55 11 5 Page86 of911

P.07

members

of the Executive

Committee

were

consulted regarding, and provided

input for, the

decision

to admit

additional

persons

to the partnership.

Reauest

for Admission

No.

13: Admit

that

in the years from

1995 through 2000,

no partner who was not a member [of] Sidley & Austin's Executive Committee voted on the admission of any other person as partner in Sidley & Austin. RESPONSE: Sidley admits that, in the years 1995-2000, no partner who was not

a member of Sidley's Executive Committee cast a formal vote on the admission of any other person becoming a partner in Sidley, but further states that through practice group and administrative committee meetings, among others, as well as through personal meetings with members of the Executive Committee, partners who were not members of the Executive Committee were consulted regarding, and provided input for, the decision to admit additional persons to the partnership. Request for Admission No. 14: Admit that in the years from 1990 through 1995, Sidley & Austin's Executive Committee admitted additional persons as Partners without approval from partners not on Executive Committee. RESPONSE: Sidley denies that in the years 1990-1995, it admitted additional

persons to the partnership without approval from partners who were not members of the Executive Committee, and further states that through practice group and administrative committee meetings, among others, as well as through personal meetings with members of the Executive Committee, partners who were not members of the Executive Committee were consulted regarding, and provided input for, the decision to admit additional persons to the partnership.

6
77249v'5

NOV-16-2005 Cas:31:05-cv-00208PO Document 61-3 14e 6 GRIP & ELDEN

Filed 04/03/2006

312 7 Page 558of 1195 11

P.08

Request for Admission No.1 5: Admit that in the years from 1990 through 1995, no partner who was not a member [ot] Sidley & Austin's Executive Committee voted on the admission of any other person as partner in Sidley & Austin. RESPONSE: Sidley admits that, in the years 1990.1995, no partner who was not

a member of Sidley's Executive Committee cast a formal vote on the admission of any other person becoming a partner in Sidley, but further states that through practice group and administrative committee meetings, among others, as well as through personal meetings with members of the Executive Committee, partners who were not members of the Executive Committee were consulted regarding, and provided input for, the decision to admit additional persons to the partnership. Request for Admission No. 16: Admit that in the years from 1990 through 2000, no issue was presented for a vote to all Sidley & Austin partners. RESPONSE: Sidley, admits that from 1990 through 2000, no issue was presented

for a formal vote by all Sidley & Austin partners, but further states that through practice group and administrative committee meetings, among others, as well as through personal meetings with members of the Executive Committee, partners were consulted regarding and provided input for a broad spectrum of fIrm management and other issues. Request for Admission No. 17: Admit that the decision to offer a change in status to Sidley & Austin partners who were changed to counselor senior counsel in the fall of 1999 was made by Sidley & Austin's Executive Committee not by those to whom such a change was offered. RESPONSE:
partner to senior counsel.

Denied. Michael Miller made the decision to change status from

7
77249vS

NOV-16-2005

GRIPP 1 a 36 C4:se 1:05-cv-00208O

8Document . ELDEN

61-3

Filed 04/03/2006

312 558 of 95 Page 8 11 11

P.09

Request for Admission No. 18: Admit that attached as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of a letter dated April S, 2000 authored by Thomas Cole and Charles Douglas and addressed "To Our Clients, Alumni, Colleagues and Friends." RESPONSE: Sidley admits that Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of a letter

dated AprilS, 2000 signed by Thomas Cole and Charles Douglas, addressed "To Our Clients, Alumni, Colleagues and Friends," and written to provide a non-confidential summary of "news" and "perspectives". Request for Admission No. 19: Admit that on page 8 of Exhibit A, Mssrs. Cole and Douglas refer to a "series of measures" adopted in October 1999. RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the reference to one phrase taken out of context

and states that all such references need to be placed in context, including Sidley's Answer and its discovery responses, as each may be amended from time to time, to understand their meanings. Notwithstanding this objection, Sidley admits that Exhibit A is a letter signed by Messrs. Cole and Douglas and that it states, among other things, "In October, the Executive Committee adopted a series of measures designed to improve the Firm's competitive position." Request for Admission No. 20: Admit that on page 8 of Exhibit A, Mssrs. Cole and Douglas state that the series of measures included a "change in our retirement poJicy (formerly age 65 and now a range of 60 to 65) and the related change in status of approximately 20 partners to senior counsel." RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the reference to one phrase taken out of context

and states that aIJ such references need to be placed in context including Sidley's Answer and its discovery responses, as each may be amended from time to time, to understand their meanings. Notwithstanding this objection, Sidley admits that Exhibit A is a letter signed by Messrs. Cole and Douglas and that it states, among other things, "Press attention to these changes focused principally on the change in our retirement policy (formerly age 6S and now a range of 60 to 65)

8
77249v5

NOU-16-2005

GRIP & ELDEN C14se61:05-cv-00208PO Document 61-3 a :3

Filed 04/03/2006

312 9 Page558of1195 11

P.10

and the related change

in status of approximately

20

partners to senior counsel.

The press also

noted that approximately

15 partners
for Admission

changed

to counsel

status."

Request and Douglas on page

to No. 21: Admit

that the statement made by Mssrs. Cole
20 herein is true.

8 of Exhibit A and quoted

in Paragraph

RESPONSE:

Sidley admits that the statements contained in the letter dated

April 5,2000, and signed by Messrs. Cole and Douglas, when read in their entirety and placed in proper context including Sidley's Answer and its discovery responses, as each may be amended from time to time, are true. Sidley further states that the change in status of any partners to senior counselor counsel was made on the basis of the partners' performance, their contribution to the firm and the need to improve Sidley's competitive position, as stated at page 8 of

Exhibit A. Request for Admission No 22: Admit that on page 8 of Exhibit A Messrs. Cole
and Douglas in referring to the series of measures, state "the underlying theme of all of these changes was the creation of opportunities for our younger lawyers." RESPONSE: Sidley objects to the reference to one phrase taken out of context

and states that all such references need to be placed in context including Sidley's Answer and its discovery responses, as each may be amended trom time to time, to understand their meanings. Notwithstanding this objection, Sidley admits that Exhibit A is a letter signed by Messrs. Cole and Douglas and that it states, among other things, "Equally, if not more important were other key changes

- heightened

emphasis on practice development, starting with giving even greater

attention to existing clients and an expansion of the ways we can serve them; and improvements in associate training and evaluation. The underlying theme of all of these changes was the creation of opportunities of our younger lawyers. "

9
77249v5

NOV-16-2005 Ca4:31:05-cv-00208PO Document 61-3 1 se 6 GRIP & ELDEN

Filed 04/03/2006

312 58 1 11 Page510 of195

P.ll

Request for Admission No. 23: Admit that the statement made by Messrs. Cole and Douglas on page 8 of Exhibit A and quoted in paragraph 22 herein is true. RESPON~E: Sidley admits that the statements contained in the letter dated

April 5, 2000, and signed by Messrs. Cole and Douglas, when read in their entirety and placed in proper context including Sidley's Answer and its discovery responses, as each may be amended from time to time, are true. Sidley denies, however, that the underlying theme of the changes in status of certain partners to senior counselor counsel was the creation of opportunities for Sidley's younger lawyers. Instead, the underlying reasons for the change in status of those partners was their performance, their contribution to the firm and the need to improve Sidley's competitive position, as stated at page 8 of Exhibit A. Together with other measures relating to practice development for new and existing clients, improvements in associate training and evaluation, and review and reduction of costs and expenses, these decisions were intended to improve Sidley's competitive position overall, and to create opportunities for other Sidley lawyers, both younger and older. Certain aspects of the measures, such as improvements in associate training and evaluations, had a greater impact on younger lawyers. Dated: November 16, 2005 SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP

BY~ / On of I Attorneys Gary M. Elden Lynn H. Murray GRIPPO & ELDEN LLC 111 South Wacker Drive Chicago, Illinois 60606 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone]

10
77249vS

NOV-16-2005

GRIP & ELDEN C14se61:05-cv-00208PO Document 61-3 a :3

Filed 04/03/2006

312 11 11 11 Page558 of 95

P.12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Maile H. Solis, an attorney, hereby certify that on November 16,2005, I caused a true and complete copy of the foregoing SIDLEY AUSTIN BROWN & WOOD LLP'S RESPONSES TO EEOC'S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS to be served via Electronic Mail and Facsimile Transmission upon the following:

Deborah Laurie

1. Hamilton Elkin

([e-mail])

([e-mail])

UNITEDSTATESEQUALE~LOYMrnNT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 500 West Madison Street

Suite 2800 Chicago, Illinois 60661

CL--Maile H. Solis

TOTAL P.12