I remember the good old days of office holiday parties, ranging from bar hopping, karaoke-swinging, dance-club macarena fests to formal-attired, horsdeouvres-passing, dj-fueled, catered black-tie events. But I have marked a noticeable decrease in these social gatherings sponsored by businesses, law firms and companies to mark the holiday season. I presumed that the apparent extinction of these fetes had its genesis in cost control. However, a primary or ancillary benefit to reduced socializing among business associates might be litigation control.

Making national headlines yesterday and today is the filing of a Charge with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) by, Michelle Moor, a former associate against her former Boston law firm, Bingham McCutcheon, LLP, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation by the firm in violation of the Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws. More specifically, Ms. Moor claims that Bingham failed to protect her from and adequately investigate her claims of being drugged at a holiday party at Lucia restaurant in Boston’s North End on December 14, 2007. Following the meal, the party moved to the second floor for further socializing. Her glass, however, apparently contained more than the usual Chianti Classico Reserva. After two glasses, Moor’s memory failed her. She became disoriented and was taken to an emergency room, where blood tests revealed traces of an anticonvulsant drug, Tegretol, known to cause memory loss when consumed in conjunction with alcohol.

Following this event, Moor alleges she learned that another Bingham associate had a similar experience culminating in a rape. Moor contends that the associate chose not to formally report the incident for fear of an adverse impact on her career path. Moor then reported the matter to her partner / mentor, who happened to co-chair the firm’s labor and employment group, and the head of human resources. Bingham has responded in email that Moor’s information was “fundamentally inaccurate”

Slightly more than a month following the incident, Moor attended a celebratory dinner with three other Bingham lawyers and a member of Bingham’s litigation support technology department. The tech support person apparently boasted at the party that he “enjoyed having sex with women … who were unconscious.” This person also indicated that he knew how to procure Rohypnol, a pharmaceutical more commonly known as the “date rape” drug. Moor brought this information to Bingham and her story of the dinner discussion was corroborated by other attendees.

Moor communicated to Bingham that she feared for her safety because the tech support person worked three doors away from her office and was working on a project with her at the time. Bingham offered to move Moor to another floor, but that entailed separation from her practice group  Moor was unhappy about the move and remained insecure about her safety. Bingham advised Moor that the tech support person was no longer working for the firm in February, 2008. Still feeling unsafe, Moor left the firm that same month.

Bingham’s spokesperson Claire Papanastasiou has indicated the firm’s belief that there is no merit to the claim and that, at all times, Bingham acted in a responsive manner with respect to Moor’s complaints. There is suggestion in internal email from the firm’s general counsel, William G. Southard, that Moor actually requested that Bingham delay the investigation:

“Our initial desire was to begin an immediate investigation, however, Ms. Moor asked us to refrain because she did not want her privacy compromised and because she felt that it would be difficult to determine the identity of the offending party at such a public venue,”

Bingham released the following public statement today:

We took Ms. Moor’s report extremely seriously and were disappointed that she had decided to resign from the firm. . . . Ordinarily we do not comment further in connection with on-going disputes. Here, because issues of personal safety are implicated, we comment further to address only that matter. . . . The firm believes that at all times it acted diligently, responsibly and fairly in connection with information it received, including gathering relevant facts and conducting an appropriate and thorough investigation. . . . In connection with its investigation, the firm was unable to determine who had done this or whether the source of the drug was associated with the firm in any way. However, in response to the concerns raised by Ms. Moor, and in collaboration with a safety expert, we have developed and are providing personal-safety training to equip our people with practical, safety-related advice in their professional and personal lives. . . .

Bingham also is expected to rely on Moor’s employment agreement’s mandatory arbitration clause to prevent her from bringing this matter to court.

How is this all playing out in the hearts and minds of the general public? For an interesting read, check out the comments to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog here. For what it is worth, I personally know of a very similar incident involving two lawyers, one of whom, interestingly enough, is an employment lawyer. What’s next, lysergic acid diethylamide in the office coffee pot? Think I’ll skip the after dinner drinks, thanks.

For more visit http://advantageadvocates.com

Share