Law Students
Law students sue EEOC over investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms
Three law students have filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to withdraw investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms and to return and delete information that it gathered from them. (Photo by David Zalubowski/The Associated Press)
Three law students have filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to withdraw investigative letters sent to 20 BigLaw firms and to return and delete information that it gathered from them.
The April 15 suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, says the EEOC acted beyond its authority when it demanded that law firms turn over sensitive personal information about their applicants and employees dating back six to 10 years.
The law students, who filed the suit using pseudonyms, are represented by Democracy Forward, a nonprofit legal services organization, according to a April 15 press release.
Law.com and Reuters have coverage.
Reuters called the suit “the latest pushback against President Donald Trump’s efforts to rein in major law firms and eradicate workplace diversity, equity and inclusion programs.”
The plaintiffs are three law students who either applied to or worked at one of more of the 20 targeted firms. Information sought from the firms includes “sensitive personal information about plaintiffs and their employment history: their name, sex, race, contact information, academic performance and compensation,” the suit says.
Now that the EEOC and Andrea Lucas, the acting EEOC chair, have demanded the information, the suit says, the plaintiffs “are deeply worried that their data will be divulged, and that they may be targeted as a result.”
The law creating the EEOC provides that an investigation can be conducted only after a specific charge has been filed, the suit says. The law also “imposed strict confidentiality requirements on those charges and investigations, as well as on efforts to obtain voluntary compliance,” according to the suit.
Those requirements have not been met, according to the allegations.
The EEOC sought the information in a March 17 letter and announced the action in a press release. The targeted firms are: Perkins Coie; Cooley; Reed Smith; A&O Shearman; Debevoise & Plimpton; Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer; Goodwin Procter; Hogan Lovells; Kirkland & Ellis; Latham & Watkins; McDermott Will & Emery; Milbank; Morgan, Lewis & Bockius; Morrison & Foerster; Ropes & Gray; Sidley Austin; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; White & Case; and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr.
Six of the targeted firms have since reached deals with Trump to avoid becoming a target of punitive executive orders that would withdraw their lawyers’ security clearances and could imperil their representation of government contractors.
According to Law.com, those six firms are: Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, A&O Shearman, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, Milbank and Skadden. It’s unclear whether agreements reached with Skadden and Milbank resolve the EEOC request. The other four firms agreed to compliance monitoring as part of those deals, but it’s not known if they agreed to provide the requested information.
See also:
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
