The law firm Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP illegally discriminated against older employees by forcing partners out because of their age, federal regulators alleged yesterday in a lawsuit.
The suit, filed in federal court in Chicago, seeks reinstatement or back pay and other lost benefits. It tests whether people labeled as partners by the giant firm were in effect employees protected by federal anti-discrimination law. The firm has argued that the government lacks jurisdiction because the lawyers shared in the firm's risks, rewards and management responsibilities, thereby qualifying as true partners.
The term "partner" has been applied loosely at professional-services firms, and "all kinds of firms" may need to "go back and really revisit what their practices are," Cari M. Dominguez, chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which brought the suit, said in an interview.
Sidley Austin Brown & Wood has more than 1,400 attorneys, including 225 in the District, according to its Web site. The firm, formed by a 2001 merger, reflects the consolidation of many law firms into large organizations managed by smaller committees.
The EEOC alleged that the firm discriminated by enforcing a mandatory retirement age after this practice was banned in the 1970s and by downgrading or forcing out 31 partners in 1999 based on their age.
"The firm has always been committed to a policy of equal opportunity and nondiscrimination," Sidley spokesman Paul Verbinnen said. "We will vigorously defend against the EEOC action, which has no merit."
In an April 2000 letter to clients, the firm's leaders noted that in 1999, Sidley & Austin had changed the status of some lawyers from partner to counsel or senior counsel and that it had changed its retirement policy, "formerly age 65 and now a range of 60 to 65."
"The underlying theme of all of these changes was the creation of opportunities for our younger lawyers," the chairmen of the firm's executive and management committees wrote.
In court papers filed in 2002, Sidley said partners affected by the 1999 action were not targeted because of age and that 103 of Sidley's partners over age 50 were not asked to change their status.
Former Sidley partner David Alan Richards said in an interview that in 1999, around his 55th birthday, he was summoned to a meeting with members of the firm's management committee, during which he was told he would lose his equity partnership.
"I was given no performance-based standard for the demotion," he said. "The shock to the system was the disrespect to my ego and the pain of having to explain to clients who saw my changed status," said Richards, who added that his clients followed him to another firm.
James W. Jones, a former managing partner of the Arnold & Porter LLP law firm, said it is common for big law firms to have mandatory retirement ages and to delegate management to committees. Typically, partners elect the managers, Jones said.
At Sidley, partners could go through their entire careers without being able to vote on the management committees, John C. Hendrickson, regional attorney in the EEOC's Chicago District Office, said in an interview.
"A small self-perpetuating group of managers at the top ran everything," he said in a news release. "Whatever titles Sidley had decided to give these lawyers -- partner, counsel, or otherwise -- our investigation indicated that they had no voice or control in governance of the firm and they could be and were fired just like any other employees."
