Author Archives: Robert Odell

Harris v. Bingham McCutchen – Victory on Arbitration Issue

Robert Odell Arbitration Harris v. Bingham McCutchenEarlier this month, the California Court of Appeal denied mega law firm Bingham McCutchen’s attempt to have a wrongful termination lawsuit (filed against them by a former associate, Hartwell Harris) thrown out of court and into binding arbitration. (Click here read the court’s decision).

All all three justices in Division Five of California’s Second Appellate District unanimously agreed that Bingham’s arbitration agreement (which forces all of its employees to arbitrate their claims against the company rather than file lawsuits in court) was invalid under Massachusetts law, which was also Bingham’s own choice in drafting their agreements.

Law Firm Fails to Enforce its Own Arbitration Clause

Ms. Harris worked for Bingham in their Santa Monica, CA office as a litigation associate from May 2007 until February 2011 when she was fired after developing a rare sleep disorder called Delayed Sleep-Phase Syndrome. She later filed a lawsuit against Bingham in November 2011, claiming that, despite her positive reviews, Bingham terminated her once they learned of her disability and need for accommodation while she returned to a normal sleep cycle.

After the lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, Bingham moved to compel the case to binding arbitration, citing the arbitration clause in Harris’ employment contract.  Presiding Judge Mel Red Recana, however, agreed with Harris’s attorney, Tamara S. Freeze, and denied Bingham’s arbitration petition on the grounds that the provision was not enforceable under Massachusetts law, which Bingham had decided would control the contract.

Bingham then appealed the trial court’s decision, however, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s denial in a strong 3-0 decision – both ordering their opinion to be published in the appellate records and ordering Bingham to pay Harris her costs on appeal.

Attorney Reaction

Regarding the appeal, the Law Offices of Tamara S. Freeze has stated on their blog:

“Ironically, Bingham McCutchen knew their arbitration agreement, as originally drafted, was invalid in light of a 2009 Massachusetts Supreme Court opinion: Warfield v. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Inc. but apparently forgot to update it. Indeed, Bingham’s own attorneys published a press release on their website warning their clients about this new law and how it would affect arbitration agreements . . . a warning that Bingham apparently failed to heed itself. For obvious reasons, the publication has since disappeared from Bingham’s website (but we still have a copy HERE).”

Hartwell Harris was represented by Tamara Freeze, Robert Odell, Allison Lin and law clerk Harrison Brown.

 

1 Comment

Filed under Disability Discrimination, Disabling Injury and Illness, Discrimination

Employment Lawsuits and Your Medical History: What’s Fair Game?

Medical Records Attorney Employment RecordsOne of the most common disputes to arise during an employment lawsuit is access to your private medical documents. The employer who’s being sued (or more accurately, their attorneys) routinely insist that, by filing a lawsuit and alleging emotional distress, you’ve voluntarily put your health and all related records “at issue” such that it’s up for grabs during discovery.  This, however, is not always true, and you should be aware of your constitutional right to privacy while engaged in a lawsuit.

“Give Us Everything” 

Discovery, of course, refers to the window of time between filing your lawsuit and trial (usually 8-10 months) where both sides get to demand relevant documents from each other and also demand that certain questions be answered truthfully. As a general matter, a party is “entitled” to discover any documents as long as the request is “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.”

Historically, this is a very low bar to satisfy and attorneys can get their hands on a wide range of documents with very little justification. California laws and public policy also support this notion, as courts feel that the more information attorneys have, the more likely they can make informed decisions and settle the case. With that being said, an attorney’s favorite term of art during discovery tends to be “any and all.” For example, your attorney will probably ask the employer/defendant for “any and all written complaints of discrimination by other employees.” This type of demand is permitted during an employment lawsuit because evidence of other employees’ complaints would support a discriminatory pattern or motive, thus supporting your claim of discrimination.

The problem, however, arises when the employer serves a subpoena on your doctors and therapists demanding “any and all” of your medical records. This type of demand is intentionally broad and is designed to encompass every known type of medical document, even if they have nothing to do with your lawsuit. In a recent case, for example, the defendant/employer tried to demand all medical documents from every physician our client had seen over the past five years. The demand included private medical documents from our client’s therapist, general doctors, and even her dentist and gynecologist.

Requests like that are highly intrusive to say the least, but it’s important to know that private medical records are highly protected under California law, even when you’re involved in a lawsuit. More specifically, attorneys have to meet a much higher legal burden to get their hands on that kind of sensitive material, even when you put your health “at issue” in your complaint.

Unfortunately, some attorneys take a stance that, if the documents won’t affect your case, then who cares, just let them have it, right? Of course not. What still matters is your constitutional right to privacy and your attorney should take the appropriate steps to protect it.

Continue reading

1 Comment

Filed under Lawsuits & Lawyers