A gender discrimination matter currently pending before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals could potentially change the status of law firm partners in their ability to sue for violations of both of federal and state anti-discrimination statutes. 

Both Title VII and its state counterpart, the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”), protect only “employees” from discrimination.  As such, partners in law firms and other business associations, traditionally, have been foreclosed from suing under these statutes.  An upcoming decision by the Third Circuit could potentially change all of that.

In Kirleis v. Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, female partner, Alyson J. Kirleis is suing Dickie McCamey & Chilcote, alleging that the law firm pays its female lawyers less than males and that male partners had made disparaging remarks to her about the status of women lawyers within the firm. 

The federal district court in Pittsburgh granted summary judgment in favor of the law firm on the grounds that Kirleis was an equity partner in the firm and, therefore, not an “employee” that could bring suit under Title VII and the PHRA.  According to the district court, "[t]he indicia of control and ownership in traditional large firm partnerships tilts toward recognizing equity partners as employers and not employees, although all factors must be considered.”  The district court opined that Kirleis "shares many of the attributes of traditional equity partners in a large law firm partnership. She owns DMC as much as any other Class A shareholder/director owns it, including members of the executive committee and its officers, and she shares in its profits, losses and liabilities, unlike those employees and associate attorneys whose salaries are fixed."

Kirleis is now appealing the district court’s ruling to the Third Circuit, arguing that she should be treated as an ‘employee’ because her work is "subject to the control of" the firm's executive committee, which has the authority to terminate her or any other partner. 

Supporting Kirleis is an amicus brief by the Women's Law Project, the National Women's Law Center and the National Partnership for Women & Families, which says the district court’s decision "relied on a mistaken view of how law firms currently function and misapplied the appropriate legal standard, denying Kirleis a day in court."  According to the amicus brief, the district court’s decision ignores the present realities in law firm management when law firms "have adopted entirely new methods of operating, including multi-tiered partnerships, increasingly large partnerships that confer limited rights, and executive committees that exercise full control over the hiring, firing, promotion, and compensation of the attorneys in the firm."

This newsletter is a publication of Nochumson P.C. and is intended for general information only. It should not be construed as legal advice with respect to any particular situation, and readers should not act upon information contained in this newsletter without first consulting an attorney. Copyright © 2009.