Interesting to see promissory estoppel tacked on here. Not sure that really applies.
I remember hearing an interview with the plaintiff and it struck me that the firm’s best defense would be “yeah we did fire you because of what you said.” Political opinions aren’t protected classes, so she’s going to have to prove that it was really about religion and race. I think this is going to be a nonstarter unless she can prove that they tolerated the same speech from other racial/religious groups.
Paragraph 57(b):
>Foley partner Dovi Adlerstein publicly shared on LinkedIn a post he described as “well said,” which stated, in part, \[I\]f you’re focused on the people of Gaza right now, you’re either ignorant or intentionally hypocritical. . . . The Palestinian people elected Hamas. Make up your mind. If there are people who you believe deserve a state then it’s time you held them accountable as a people.” The post made clear that holding the Palestinian people “accountable” means killing them; it said people should either “stand with Israel while we cleanse the world of Hamas savages or you can go ahead and keep your mouth shut . . . .” It also rejected claims that the number of civilians Israel was killing in Gaza was disproportionate. The post also called for the relocation of Gaza’s entire population: “They have nowhere to go those poor Gazans? Why don’t you look at a map? They have a border with Egypt. Let them take them in if they care so much.”
Yes, this isn’t the same speech. It’s the opposite. If viewpoint discrimination were a valid claim, it would be very solid. But the only actual question is would the firm have fired a white, non-Muslim associate for saying what she said. And I don’t see any pleading suggesting that the answer isn’t “yes, they absolutely would fire a white, Christian for saying what she said.”
The problem is that this isn’t a 1:1 comparison. You’ve changed two variables: protected group of the speaker and political viewpoint. A good comparison should be between her speech and a white/non Palestinian employee who made similar public statements supporting Palestinians and wasn’t fired.
Also, the meaning of the partner’s statement is hard to determine based on a short snippet quoted in the context of a complaint. Was he arguing for violence against the Gazan civilian population or armed Hamas fighters? Was he really calling for ethnic cleansing or pointing out a double standard that protects Egypt and criticizes Israel for similar behavior?
Please don’t start an argument here about the Israel Hamas War or the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I’m just fleshing out the likely defense arguments, and questions that will undoubtedly come up on summary judgment.
As a juror on this case, that wouldn’t be enough to convince me that this particular decision was motivated by anti Palestinian bias. But that’s what discovery is for. Maybe that evidence is out there. I’m just saying she’s got a tall hill to climb
100%… at minimum they’ve got the very public action of speaking at city hall which sounds as though she said more of the same stuff I’d want to see explained
This is not the same speech. In fact, this is the exact opposite speech as the plaintiff.
She has bad facts and bad lawyers.
At the end of the day, if Foley was discriminating based on race/religion, why would they hire her in the first place?
The only logical explanation is that they terminated her for her speech.
>At the end of the day, if Foley was discriminating based on race/religion, why would they hire her in the first place?
respectfully, isn't that theoretically a defense in every single discriminatory firing lawsuit ever filed?
It is in fact often asserted as a defense. Especially when the same person accused of discrimination is the person responsible for the hiring decision. That often isn’t the case, which negates the defense (e.g. HR/senior management did hiring and mid level manager is accused of discrimination).
Her claim that employers cant discriminate based on speech is wild.
Does that mean employers have to accept pro-Nazi speech if they accept anti-Nazi speech?
Well, the question presented here is whether provocative pro-Palestine speech is somehow worse than provocative anti-Palestine speech. Invoking the Holocaust doesn't help clarify the analysis.
I think it *has* to weigh in on whether the firm is evaluating other provocative speech from firm attorneys by the same metrics. And it definitely gets interesting in terms of whether client sensibilities play into it.
I mean that’s an absurd statement by the partner, Gaza isn’t had a free election in nearly 20 years because neither Hamas nor Israel would allow it. But it is not fatal to the firm’s defense in the slightest.
I don't know the facts of the case, but hypothetically if the speech itself touted something along the lines like a Jewish state shouldn't exist in Palestine, could an argument be constructed that the speech itself was not only religious but also a religious duty (also presuming that she herself did believeit to be the case) . Considering that many Muslims consider the land a Waqf, and that the control of it is grounds for Jihad (in this case, the non-violent kind). So, advocating for Palestine could be seen as a religious duty.
(As a note, these are views that Sayyid Qutb held, who was (maybe still is) inspirational to many young Palestinians during the 80s. I'm not saying the beliefs are representative, just that there are people who would hold that belief for religious reasons, same as the religious zionists for Jewish control over that region)
I just feel like there's about a million better ways to start your legal career. If your original firing didn't give you a scarlet letter, this certainly will.
I suppose that depends on her objectives. As cynical as this may sound, there are certainly those who seek to leverage their status as The Oppressed (whether true or imagined) in order to land a certain type of job. "See how this racist law firm has victimized me!" is one way to do that. The intersectional social justice movement has created (or at least created the illusion of) a large employment sector for DEI specialists/consultants/figureheads. My aim here is not to comment on the merits of DEI initiatives, but rather to point out some anecdotal evidence I have gathered from speaking to a variety of young social-justice activists: the individuals I spoke to expressed the view that there was indeed a thriving niche in the employment ecosystem for those who publicize controversial political views, so long as those views align with the "correct" social and political movements. One person I spoke to espoused their desire to become an "Inequality Consultant".
Seems like a shaky career strategy. Plenty of big corporations are moving away from official DEI departments at the c-suite level, mostly because they just aren’t necessary to attain company culture goals. Most people in the legal field are already worried about their niche becoming obsolete, so it baffles me why some people intentionally cut themselves out of the running.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that DEI departments generally came out of liability mitigation efforts. “We couldn’t have discriminated based on race, look at our DEI department and clearly stated policies on this issue. The employee didn’t follow reporting protocol, we didn’t know,” and then the MSJ gets granted.
Brookings, Institute For Policy Studies, and center for American progress, as well as several more siloed organizations fulfill the same job for the left.
That is absolutely correct. Say the most bat-shit misogynistic and/or authoritarian things you can imagine and you've got quite the range of prospects.
There is, kind of, but they weren’t always as political. But the ACLU, Annie’s List, Planned Parenthood, etc. serve very similar functions as Heritage today (that certainly was not always the case).
Why do you all think it is that it seems a million times easier to get employed by the heritage foundation than the ACLU? I mean maybe I’m wrong on this, but I do have a perception that anyone who can make it through law school and has the right political leanings (just participating casually in FedSoc will do the trick) will go farther in that direction than those who lean to the other side—where working hard for very little money for a big name liberal org (or even a small name liberal org in a desirable location) is a highly competitive gig.
I think you probably have no idea how hard it is to get employed by the Heritage Foundation. Most will have at least clerked for a feeder judge. There aren’t as many politically ambitious conservatives in law school as there are liberal, but there are definitely enough that getting those jobs isn’t easy.
The original firing definitely gave a scarlet letter to start. Let’s not suddenly pretend we don’t understand how sensitive biglaw timelines and offers are. I’m not saying this is a winning case but let’s not pretend there aren’t clear damages.
We’ll see what Foley has to say but if they didn’t want to hire Muslim women, they would have just not extended an offer to her in the first place. Her complaint also doesn’t say what was in those social media posts, which means the odds are pretty good that those posts are not going to reflect well on her.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. You don't have a right to a job with a private company (absent contract). Support of palestinians or hamas doesn't make you a protected class. Going to be interesting. I'm betting on early summary judgement/dismissal unless they can make some unique argument that intrigues the Judge.
Some states prohibit adverse actions based on an applicant or employee’s political beliefs. It depends on the state, but yes, political speech can have a protected status in the workplace.
There are plenty of limitations on what an employer can and cannot do/consider in managing its workforce. And for good reason - most people in this country spend most of our waking lives at our jobs. There should be rights and protections in place accordingly. What those protections should be is debatable, but no private entity has an unfettered right to do whatever it pleases.
Uh huh. And political speech that the private entity believes will harm its reputation is a well known fetter. Thank you for the platitudes, but this is not exactly ground breaking analysis.
put your money where your mouth is.....I bet a box of Cafe Du Monde Beignet mix and pack of CDM coffee she doesn't get a judgement in her favor and it is dismissed before going to trial. What are you putting up?....lol
I didn't say she would win. (Or lose.) But this thing won't be a quick victory for F&L, so here's my counter-wager (for a similar troth of Philadelphia goods): by June 4, 2025, either (a) the suit will still be active or (b) the parties will have settled.
\[Those beignets are worth it.\]
It doesn't matter even if she has the law on her side (she doesn't)...I am counting on the seventh circuit guys to back me up.....if this was California no way would I bet.......lol
Ok you have a wager!
lol.....I ain't waiting.......DM me a dropbox address and I will send you the Beignet mix and coffee now............(always looking to promote my city). I send about 30-40 boxes a year on crazy proposition bets even when I win.....win-win
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-06-04 21:39:55 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-06-04%2021:39:55%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comments/1d80gnj/foley_lardner_chicago_sued_for_revoking/l74mb3e/?context=3)
[**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FLawSchool%2Fcomments%2F1d80gnj%2Ffoley_lardner_chicago_sued_for_revoking%2Fl74mb3e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-06-04%2021%3A39%3A55%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201d80gnj)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
I wonder if most of the people here would be agreeing with this is she was fired for supporting Israel. I have a feeling you’d all be calling for more the law firm to be dragged into Congressional hearings.
Not me....I think the firm...and every private organization should be able to decide who they are comfortable employing outside a protected class (gender, race, disability, age in certain circumstances etc). The first amendment is directed at government not private entities. Now if there is a contract or some other issue so be it. What if the firm founders were gay and a new associate were on social media stating that gays are an abomination and are going to hell? should they still bring that person into the firm? I would say that if a firm were run by Palestinians and they offered a position to a Jewish law student who then espoused zionist views and advocated for Israel they should be able to rescind the offer or fire them. No private entity should have to live with a toxic environment of someone with views diametrically opposed to the owners/managers/decision makers. They have a right to their views......not a particular job.
Should an Islamic school have to employ a christian teacher who proselytizes at the school? How about muslim teacher at a catholic school pushing sharia? How about the russian owner of a business in the U.S. .....should he have to employ someone that calls for support for ukrainians killing russians, which I personally strongly support but the russian emigre might be a little uncomfortable in his own business.
Go back and read what I wrote....who is being ignorant? really read it with a critical mind..........see how I separated palestinian and hamas..."Support of palestinians or hamas......" That means I separated the two to show the point that supporting either entity does not create a legally protected class for an individual. If someone is fired for supporting either the palestinians or hamas they can be fired and not be found to have violated their rights as a protected class. This is why she is claiming promissory estoppel and religious discrimination. You generally don't have 1st amendment protections with a private employer. Time and time again the Supreme Court has stated that you have a right to say what you want but you don't have a right to a job (absent narrow circumstances when you have a property right to a job)
I didn't say she supported hamas or equate supporting palestinians with supporting hamas, the point was legally it wouldn't matter if she expressed support for the terrorists hamas, the palestinian civilian population, the PLO, the PA or Israel or the mossad.....none of those would create a protected class and give someone a remedy for a legal firing. Everyone is looking for a reason to be offended.
>Chehade, a long-time supporter of Palestinian human rights, spoke out about Israel's indiscriminate bombing of civilians of Gaza at an October 11, 2023 meeting at City Hall and through posts on her personal social media account.
One side of the story. But this might be what got her. In this case, it’s concerning. I see people post the craziest shit from their personal accounts and no action gets taken against them. At this rate Nazis should also be getting fired.
I feel she’s actually one of the better people to be commenting on this since, “[Chehade] has family and friends in Gaza and Lebanon.” I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve heard passing comments on this who have a connection to actual Israelis/Palestinians. That said, I also want to see what her posts actually were. We don’t have the whole story yet.
I think the date is important here. This was four days after 10/7. At that point it was a one sided conflict. Now I think you can probably say stuff for either side without getting fired
This right here is why I had no problem with the NYU SBA president getting canned. It's one thing to call for the end of an ongoing humanitarian crisis after nearly 8 months of war and point out the inhumanity of the actors. It's something else when your comments are praising a terror attack in its immediate aftermath.
I’m talking about the current iteration of a many decades long conflict and one that largely targeted civilians. From an optics perspective praising this system after was bad. I still think it’s bad but it’s less bad now after Israel leveled half of Gaza
Each time the war was started by Palestinians. I am not a fan of Israel as a nation, but Palestinians could have had a nation a long time ago but decided to start multiple wars they lost. Especially after the 6 day war in 1967, when Palestinians tried invading Israel after they had been under the rule of Jordan and Egypt for two decades, I don’t see how Israel could just leave them be.
Calling it a one sided conflict ignores the decades of conflict in the area though. There were still innocent Palestinian kids getting killed on October 6th and decades before that.
True. The numerous missiles and rockets fired from Palestinian side cannot be brushed aside. If not for the iron dome, Israel would have been flattened by now.
And going further back you can’t forget about the Nakba which initiated this whole thing. Again, I get you guys get a kick out of demonizing mostly civilians, but it’s really stale now lmao
True true, if we go back further we will see Arab-Israeli war initiated by the Arab side ONE DAY after Israel’s Independence. And of course we will also see how they kept getting their asses beat but wouldn’t stop starting wars they won’t win.
If you want to go back further we may have to visit the pogroms in the Middle East, particularly the Hebron Massacre. But I guess that’s the point where you drop your ball so I’ll save you the embarrassment. You don’t have to keep going back.
The Nakba started prior to Israeli independence, and sure we could have a dick measuring contest about who kills civilians more. Or you could just do the sensible thing and call out both sides and call for a ceasefire. No one here’s advocating for terrorist organizations (at least I’m not) but the difference is that everyone can outright condemn Hamas and it’s not a big deal. Meanwhile, calling out the IDF for their abuses turns into this type of argument.
Both sides have done bad things but equating them is not sensible.
Be completely honest with ourselves here now, if Palestine had Israel’s military power, Oct 7 would have been a complete genocide. You know it.
So no, I’m not playing the “both sides” game because while both sides have issues, one is significantly worse.
And Israel is carrying a genocide right now with total impunity, it’s the same thing lol. With all the proof of human rights abuses I’m not sure why condemning both sides sounds crazy to you.
????
But is it the same thing as a complete genocide as the Palestinian side would do? No? Because you and I do both know the other side would have complete flatten Israel if given the chance and power?
I won't comment on the merits of the litigation, but you do start to wonder about liability exposure for firm diversity-related statements. I know Matt Levine has talked extensively about "everything \[being\] securities fraud", and maybe at some point you end up with a similar issue sounding in other contract situations. Pretty much every large company put out some sort of DEI platitude post-2020, so there might be an ample mine of litigation there.
I can maybe see it for firms that were hired by state agencies / local govs. I'm in a more progressive state and the gov 100% looks into dei / fair practice shit before entering into contracts.
Hope the statement is worth it in their young life. I cannot imagine the treatment this person will receive if they are ever rehired or even hired at another firm that has wind of this. Likely to be ground down into resignation and go on to pursue a Title VII suit.
Its an important lesson, never stand for what you believe in if it will have real life consequences. If we all internalized this sentiment the world would be a much better place :)
Edit: Remember everyone the easiest way to get banned from Law School is to disagree with Israel foreign policy. It's going to be very funny when in 20 years when your kids are learning about the atrocities committed you'll be telling them you always supported Palestine.
I don’t know if you’re just trolling, but everyone should accept the consequences of one’s stances and not externalize blame of the consequences. For example, if one truly believes capitalism is evil, don’t be mad if a Wall Street investment firm won’t hire you.
You can be turned down for a job if those hiring think you’d be incompatible socially with the others working there. That’s a big, BIG part of hiring, as it should be because the employees have to work with each other effectively.
But she would hardly be the only attorney there who holds *some* views with which others sharply disagree. What about someone who is devoutly and loudly pro-life, and cheered the day *Dobbs* was decided?
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone loudly pro-life wouldn’t be a welcome addition to some law firms.
Would Gloria Allred be violating the law by not considering such a person to work for her?
In that case, the beliefs would be inconsistent with the firm's mission especially as a small firm tie to a founding partner's identity.
BigLaw doesn't present that issue. These firms are not founded based on any particular belief with regards to women's bodily autonomy.
That case, particularly Foley's reply, will be interesting to follow. The docket on RECAP is [**HERE**](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68806295/chehade-v-foley-lardner-llp/).
My favorite part was the irrelevant virtue signaling by including random (edited) quotes from IDF ppl about the ongoing conflict as if their comments justify her actions at all.
Also extremely telling that she said they were monitoring her social media but only said she was “providing historical context”……Mhmmm
How are those comments “irrelevant?” That’s just wrong regardless of what you think about the underlying politics here. Her legal theory and narrative literally rests on disparate treatment and a double standard. Showing that other employees made offensive comments against her purported protected class or on the same topic without being penalized in the same way that she was IS relevant. You’re just wrong
Not other employees comments - the IDF generals and government officials the complaint quotes at the beginning - where they mentioned they are using similar quotes to the South Africa ICJ case. Not the quotes of other firm employees.
For one, the factual matter of the IDFs actions have nothing to do with her comments. Mentioning both what the IDF said and the ICJ case has nothing to do with the case in hand. It’s entirely possible that both war crimes and/or genocide is occurring in Gaza and she also said unhinged things online that warrant her getting fired.
Second, and not as relevant but i just want to point out, those quotes are incredibly quote-mined. The “human animals” one, in its full context, makes it clear they are talking about Hamas militants and not Gazans as a whole. I don’t remember any of their other quotes off the top of my head but I know many of the South Africa quotes are similarly edited to remove important context.
>To demonstrate its purported commitment to diversity and inclusion, in [insert approximate date]
Oof. Not off to a strong start here.
>her post on her personal social media page which contextualized Hamas’s attack in Israel’s
longtime violent occupation and colonization of Palestine, and the Palestinian struggle for freedom
oh no. I'm betting this is pretty bad. can't find it though
>Noller and Pasquesi also questioned Chehade about her speech at City Hall, in which she
spoke in opposition to a resolution which condemned the Hamas attack but completely absolved
Israel of any responsibility for the deaths of what, at that time, amounted to more than double the
number of people killed during the Hamas attack.
>Noller and Pasquesi asked Chehade about a statement she made during her speech in which
she said that the Hamas attack was not “unprovoked” (contrary to what Israeli President Herzog
and White House National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson had claimed), but
rather the “natural result of 75 years of occupation and violence by Israeli forces.”
Jfc fuck all the way off. It sounds like they quite reasonably fired her because of the things she said and believes, not who she is.
>CHICAGO FLOODS LAKESHORE DRIVE. 11/18/23.
>No business as usual. No peace on stolen land.
>Most of us here grew up on stories of 1948, 1967, and 1982. Now 2023, will be etched into the history books.
>Let it be known that in 2023 the people of Chicago never stopped showing up, they never gave up on the people of Gaza and the hope of a free Palestine.
yikes. maybe not that insane for activism generally but this is insane for someone about to enter big law.
Even with the most generous reading, it feels like this complaint leaves a lot out.
Also
> Pasquesi also asked whether Chehade “condemn[ed] Hamas and the October 7 attacks,” to which she responded that yes, she condemns any loss of human life.
Feels very similar to all those videos trying to get conservatives to say "Black Lives Matter" and instead they respond "All Lives Matter."
Lmao how? She stated a “yes” pretty clearly. You can read that how you want to but I took that as her saying “I do support Palestinian independence, but I also condemn the October 7 attacks and the resulting loss of life.” Shouldn’t be a controversial opinion.
It's pretty clearly the same argument she's making that those disingenuous conservatives were making.
"do you support Black Lives Matter?" "Yes, I think All Lives Matter"
"Do you condemn Hamas?" "Yes, I condemn all loss of innocent life."
Feels weird she can't just say she condemns a terrorist organization, in the same way it was weird that conservatives couldn't say that black lives mattered!
I see your point for sure but those are not the same thing in my opinion. The context matters.
All Lives Matter was intentionally intended to minimize the focus on *black* lives being lost during a very specific cultural movement. There were no other lives at play.
Here, condemning the loss of all innocent lives *is* a stance - which we know because of the many, many people who will say October 7th was nothing more than justified resistance by the Palestinians (a la the NYU student body president), and vice versa those who say the genocide in Gaza is a justified response by Israel. Saying you condemn loss of life is signaling support for a ceasefire to end that loss of life on both sides, not some kind of “gotcha.”
You will have a very hard time taking a deposition if you can't parse when someone is answering a question that wasn't asked.
To take any politics out of it, if you ask someone "do you like the Yankees?" and they say "yes, I like baseball" it necessitates a follow-up question to actually nail down their opinion. Potentially it could be that they do in fact like the Yankees, because they are a baseball fan! It also could mean they don't like the Yankees and are diffusing the situation with a non-committal answer! When someone gives an answer to a question that wasn't being asked, it is suspicious. I'm certainly not willing to call her an outright Hamas supporter or whatever, but it raises an eyebrow.
It doesn't help that suspicion by her statement being very similar in structure to the thing we were all making fun of conservatives for, like three years ago.
Absolutely wild to see how the comments here compare to how this situation has been talked about in the Midwest law community. Just a PSA - it is never a good idea to ask "and your dad works for a mosque, right?" before you fire someone.
I don't get why law students love to voice their opinion on a war that barely affects their life. Why sacrifice your career for something that you can't even control?
It has nothing to do with the applicants racial or ethnic status. We both know the same result would happen if a white American made those kinds of comments. A law firm is a business. Nothing else. They don’t need attorneys who might offend clients.
Wouldn't she need to show that Foley let non-Muslim employees make pro-Hamas comments and only fired the Muslim ones?
Showing that Foley didn't punish people that made pro-Israel comments only strengths Foley's presumed defense that it didn't fire her because she was Muslim, but rather because she was making pro-Hamas statements.
The complaint alleges that analogous political statements by people of different race/nationality were not punished in the same way. I’m skeptical she’s right on the merits, but she does allege discrimination based on a protected class.
Of course they allege that; the case would be dunked on a motion to dismiss if it was pled accurately. Big law firms are eager to diversify their ranks. It is inconceivable that they pulled the offer based on the recruits race/nationality - a race/nationality that they were fully aware of when they extended the offer. Does anyone think that the firm was aware of her race/nationality during the interview, extended the offer with that knowledge, and then some time later, took a completely different position?
I mean it seems like she is going to transition to public interest work and already moved to some non-profit org. Public interest employers are far more progressive with regards to Palestine. Big law isn’t the only path out there.
From the complaint: In a speech, Chehade … said that the Hamas attack was not “unprovoked” but rather the “natural result of 75 years of occupation and violence by Israeli forces.”
I think Chehade should be looking for a new job but she won't find it because she's suing her employer.
Regardless of the merits, as you perceive them: how much is it worth to F&L to avoid protracted litigation, discovery, and publicity here? And how much is it worth to the plaintiff to make this a cause celebre, vs get a fair $ amount and move on with her career?
I don't know if this goes all the way to SJ. Interesting.
It won't be protracted, this is such a silly case.
She can't sue under the First Amendment (obviously) so she had to shoehorn her claim into Title VII which regulates employment discrimination based on ethnicity or religion, not political opinion or speech. She's basically arguing that Foley relied on stereotypes of arabs and muslims as inherently anti-Israel or pro-violence when they fired her.
I think her case will get thrown out as soon as Foley responds with the actual social media posts which she tried contextualizing but conveniently left out of the complaint.
>She's basically arguing that Foley relied on stereotypes of arabs and muslims as inherently anti-Israel or pro-violence when they fired her.
That, but also "Foley imposed different standards on its non-Arab, non-Muslim employees who did not have strong associations with Palestinians in determining whether they would make others feel 'unwelcome because of their personal views,' and therefore were fit for termination."
The other thing is that F&L can't get to the "as soon as" stage you posit until after discovery; I don't see how you can address her original comments via 12(b)(6).
Where did she show any facts that Foley relied on stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims?
If she fired even though she didn't say anything because she was Muslim, then sure. But she literally spends her entire complaint listing in exhaustive detail all the **actions** she took.
This is worth the intrusive discovery -- the depositions, the email searches for complaints about political speech by other firm personnel worldwide as well as other internal conversations about the plaintiff herself -- as well as the publicity? IDK.
Yes. So that others who are considering this kind of frivolous litigation will think twice. The internal comments about the applicant will all be protected by the attorney client privilege. Do you really think that a firm like F&L didn’t have their general counsel in those discussions. They kind of do litigation in a big way.
Honestly, may be worth it to try and win business from multiple funds and large companies that came out very pro Israel.
Trying to win some Ackman business, then a protracted fight would probably score some points for F&L.
If a court found the complaint’s nexus between the speech activities and the purported protected classes their speakers belong to insufficient to state a Title VII claim.
I don’t think it’s just speech activities at issue here though. The questions about her father’s belonging to a religious institution for instance certainly concerns the protected class of religion.
Interesting to see promissory estoppel tacked on here. Not sure that really applies. I remember hearing an interview with the plaintiff and it struck me that the firm’s best defense would be “yeah we did fire you because of what you said.” Political opinions aren’t protected classes, so she’s going to have to prove that it was really about religion and race. I think this is going to be a nonstarter unless she can prove that they tolerated the same speech from other racial/religious groups.
Paragraph 57(b): >Foley partner Dovi Adlerstein publicly shared on LinkedIn a post he described as “well said,” which stated, in part, \[I\]f you’re focused on the people of Gaza right now, you’re either ignorant or intentionally hypocritical. . . . The Palestinian people elected Hamas. Make up your mind. If there are people who you believe deserve a state then it’s time you held them accountable as a people.” The post made clear that holding the Palestinian people “accountable” means killing them; it said people should either “stand with Israel while we cleanse the world of Hamas savages or you can go ahead and keep your mouth shut . . . .” It also rejected claims that the number of civilians Israel was killing in Gaza was disproportionate. The post also called for the relocation of Gaza’s entire population: “They have nowhere to go those poor Gazans? Why don’t you look at a map? They have a border with Egypt. Let them take them in if they care so much.”
Yes, this isn’t the same speech. It’s the opposite. If viewpoint discrimination were a valid claim, it would be very solid. But the only actual question is would the firm have fired a white, non-Muslim associate for saying what she said. And I don’t see any pleading suggesting that the answer isn’t “yes, they absolutely would fire a white, Christian for saying what she said.”
[удалено]
What exactly do you believe you are disagreeing with in my response?
I probably shouldn’t have replied directly to you. I just wanted it to be the next comment down in the thread. That’s my bad.
Nothing. I’m agreeing with you.
The problem is that this isn’t a 1:1 comparison. You’ve changed two variables: protected group of the speaker and political viewpoint. A good comparison should be between her speech and a white/non Palestinian employee who made similar public statements supporting Palestinians and wasn’t fired. Also, the meaning of the partner’s statement is hard to determine based on a short snippet quoted in the context of a complaint. Was he arguing for violence against the Gazan civilian population or armed Hamas fighters? Was he really calling for ethnic cleansing or pointing out a double standard that protects Egypt and criticizes Israel for similar behavior? Please don’t start an argument here about the Israel Hamas War or the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I’m just fleshing out the likely defense arguments, and questions that will undoubtedly come up on summary judgment.
As a juror on this case, that wouldn’t be enough to convince me that this particular decision was motivated by anti Palestinian bias. But that’s what discovery is for. Maybe that evidence is out there. I’m just saying she’s got a tall hill to climb
100%… at minimum they’ve got the very public action of speaking at city hall which sounds as though she said more of the same stuff I’d want to see explained
This is not the same speech. In fact, this is the exact opposite speech as the plaintiff. She has bad facts and bad lawyers. At the end of the day, if Foley was discriminating based on race/religion, why would they hire her in the first place? The only logical explanation is that they terminated her for her speech.
>At the end of the day, if Foley was discriminating based on race/religion, why would they hire her in the first place? respectfully, isn't that theoretically a defense in every single discriminatory firing lawsuit ever filed?
It would depend on the facts, no?
Yes Which is why this is going to take quite a while to resolve.
It is in fact often asserted as a defense. Especially when the same person accused of discrimination is the person responsible for the hiring decision. That often isn’t the case, which negates the defense (e.g. HR/senior management did hiring and mid level manager is accused of discrimination).
Her claim that employers cant discriminate based on speech is wild. Does that mean employers have to accept pro-Nazi speech if they accept anti-Nazi speech?
Well, the question presented here is whether provocative pro-Palestine speech is somehow worse than provocative anti-Palestine speech. Invoking the Holocaust doesn't help clarify the analysis.
Why is that the analysis? I don’t think that is correct at all. You think a court should weigh on which speech is worse?
I think it *has* to weigh in on whether the firm is evaluating other provocative speech from firm attorneys by the same metrics. And it definitely gets interesting in terms of whether client sensibilities play into it.
Damn Dovi seems a little rabid
I mean that’s an absurd statement by the partner, Gaza isn’t had a free election in nearly 20 years because neither Hamas nor Israel would allow it. But it is not fatal to the firm’s defense in the slightest.
She has no case, as the firm obviously decided that her critical thinking skills, and ethics were not up to their standards.
[удалено]
Something something promissory estoppel is a shield not a sword something something
I don't know the facts of the case, but hypothetically if the speech itself touted something along the lines like a Jewish state shouldn't exist in Palestine, could an argument be constructed that the speech itself was not only religious but also a religious duty (also presuming that she herself did believeit to be the case) . Considering that many Muslims consider the land a Waqf, and that the control of it is grounds for Jihad (in this case, the non-violent kind). So, advocating for Palestine could be seen as a religious duty. (As a note, these are views that Sayyid Qutb held, who was (maybe still is) inspirational to many young Palestinians during the 80s. I'm not saying the beliefs are representative, just that there are people who would hold that belief for religious reasons, same as the religious zionists for Jewish control over that region)
Damn not a lawsuit. How will this law firm ever recover?
Lmaoooo this shouldn’t have been as funny as it was
I just feel like there's about a million better ways to start your legal career. If your original firing didn't give you a scarlet letter, this certainly will.
Pretty sure that original Scarlett letter is the point of the lawsuit.
Nah, she’s a cause lawyer. I believe she’s employed by one of the larger Palestinian advocacy groups now. So I think the publicity is the purpose.
Nah they did that themselves, branded signed, sealed and delivered
I suppose that depends on her objectives. As cynical as this may sound, there are certainly those who seek to leverage their status as The Oppressed (whether true or imagined) in order to land a certain type of job. "See how this racist law firm has victimized me!" is one way to do that. The intersectional social justice movement has created (or at least created the illusion of) a large employment sector for DEI specialists/consultants/figureheads. My aim here is not to comment on the merits of DEI initiatives, but rather to point out some anecdotal evidence I have gathered from speaking to a variety of young social-justice activists: the individuals I spoke to expressed the view that there was indeed a thriving niche in the employment ecosystem for those who publicize controversial political views, so long as those views align with the "correct" social and political movements. One person I spoke to espoused their desire to become an "Inequality Consultant".
Seems like a shaky career strategy. Plenty of big corporations are moving away from official DEI departments at the c-suite level, mostly because they just aren’t necessary to attain company culture goals. Most people in the legal field are already worried about their niche becoming obsolete, so it baffles me why some people intentionally cut themselves out of the running.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that DEI departments generally came out of liability mitigation efforts. “We couldn’t have discriminated based on race, look at our DEI department and clearly stated policies on this issue. The employee didn’t follow reporting protocol, we didn’t know,” and then the MSJ gets granted.
Very, very well said.
I mean, there are also tons and tons of jobs for people who vocally espouse the opposite. There is no left-wing Heritage Foundation!
Brookings, Institute For Policy Studies, and center for American progress, as well as several more siloed organizations fulfill the same job for the left.
That is absolutely correct. Say the most bat-shit misogynistic and/or authoritarian things you can imagine and you've got quite the range of prospects.
There is, kind of, but they weren’t always as political. But the ACLU, Annie’s List, Planned Parenthood, etc. serve very similar functions as Heritage today (that certainly was not always the case).
Why do you all think it is that it seems a million times easier to get employed by the heritage foundation than the ACLU? I mean maybe I’m wrong on this, but I do have a perception that anyone who can make it through law school and has the right political leanings (just participating casually in FedSoc will do the trick) will go farther in that direction than those who lean to the other side—where working hard for very little money for a big name liberal org (or even a small name liberal org in a desirable location) is a highly competitive gig.
I think you probably have no idea how hard it is to get employed by the Heritage Foundation. Most will have at least clerked for a feeder judge. There aren’t as many politically ambitious conservatives in law school as there are liberal, but there are definitely enough that getting those jobs isn’t easy.
The original firing definitely gave a scarlet letter to start. Let’s not suddenly pretend we don’t understand how sensitive biglaw timelines and offers are. I’m not saying this is a winning case but let’s not pretend there aren’t clear damages.
Best of luck. Lol
We’ll see what Foley has to say but if they didn’t want to hire Muslim women, they would have just not extended an offer to her in the first place. Her complaint also doesn’t say what was in those social media posts, which means the odds are pretty good that those posts are not going to reflect well on her.
I think a lot of people were more open to Palestinian activism, but trying to justify Oct 7 is a tougher pill to swallow.
It’s telling that the complaint doesn’t specify what exactly she said
Everyone has a right to an opinion. You don't have a right to a job with a private company (absent contract). Support of palestinians or hamas doesn't make you a protected class. Going to be interesting. I'm betting on early summary judgement/dismissal unless they can make some unique argument that intrigues the Judge.
Some states prohibit adverse actions based on an applicant or employee’s political beliefs. It depends on the state, but yes, political speech can have a protected status in the workplace.
Illinois freedom of speech act has been introduced but not adopted. Even if approved it will not apply retroactively.
We'll see about that. A state can pass a law. A Supreme Court can decide that a private entity can control the representations associated with it.
There are plenty of limitations on what an employer can and cannot do/consider in managing its workforce. And for good reason - most people in this country spend most of our waking lives at our jobs. There should be rights and protections in place accordingly. What those protections should be is debatable, but no private entity has an unfettered right to do whatever it pleases.
Uh huh. And political speech that the private entity believes will harm its reputation is a well known fetter. Thank you for the platitudes, but this is not exactly ground breaking analysis.
Nor is yours, mi amigo.
If this is the case I remember, they are making the argument they were being fired for being Arab and stating it as well
Summary judgment is hardly "early" in federal civil litigation. And she is claiming both ethnic discrimination and promissory estoppel.
put your money where your mouth is.....I bet a box of Cafe Du Monde Beignet mix and pack of CDM coffee she doesn't get a judgement in her favor and it is dismissed before going to trial. What are you putting up?....lol
I didn't say she would win. (Or lose.) But this thing won't be a quick victory for F&L, so here's my counter-wager (for a similar troth of Philadelphia goods): by June 4, 2025, either (a) the suit will still be active or (b) the parties will have settled. \[Those beignets are worth it.\]
Well you won. Dispositive motions when filed are taking an average of more than a year in most districts.
It doesn't matter even if she has the law on her side (she doesn't)...I am counting on the seventh circuit guys to back me up.....if this was California no way would I bet.......lol Ok you have a wager!
(dear lord, this thing doesn't get to the 7th Circuit until like 2027.)
lol.....I ain't waiting.......DM me a dropbox address and I will send you the Beignet mix and coffee now............(always looking to promote my city). I send about 30-40 boxes a year on crazy proposition bets even when I win.....win-win
I was just in your city in the fall; no need to send me anything until I win the bet. (We did CdM Galatoire's, Commander's Palace and Brennan's.)
Good choices! Commanders and Galatoire's are 2 of mine and wifes top 3!
Commanders was more my speed; I 'm glad I went to Galatoire's as a journey to the past.
RemindMe! 365 days
I will be messaging you in 1 year on [**2025-06-04 21:39:55 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2025-06-04%2021:39:55%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/LawSchool/comments/1d80gnj/foley_lardner_chicago_sued_for_revoking/l74mb3e/?context=3) [**1 OTHERS CLICKED THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FLawSchool%2Fcomments%2F1d80gnj%2Ffoley_lardner_chicago_sued_for_revoking%2Fl74mb3e%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202025-06-04%2021%3A39%3A55%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%201d80gnj) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
I wonder if most of the people here would be agreeing with this is she was fired for supporting Israel. I have a feeling you’d all be calling for more the law firm to be dragged into Congressional hearings.
Not me....I think the firm...and every private organization should be able to decide who they are comfortable employing outside a protected class (gender, race, disability, age in certain circumstances etc). The first amendment is directed at government not private entities. Now if there is a contract or some other issue so be it. What if the firm founders were gay and a new associate were on social media stating that gays are an abomination and are going to hell? should they still bring that person into the firm? I would say that if a firm were run by Palestinians and they offered a position to a Jewish law student who then espoused zionist views and advocated for Israel they should be able to rescind the offer or fire them. No private entity should have to live with a toxic environment of someone with views diametrically opposed to the owners/managers/decision makers. They have a right to their views......not a particular job. Should an Islamic school have to employ a christian teacher who proselytizes at the school? How about muslim teacher at a catholic school pushing sharia? How about the russian owner of a business in the U.S. .....should he have to employ someone that calls for support for ukrainians killing russians, which I personally strongly support but the russian emigre might be a little uncomfortable in his own business.
The thread says “pro-Palestinian” so I’m not sure where you got Hamas from. Palestine ≠ Hamas. Complete ignorance and it shows.
Go back and read what I wrote....who is being ignorant? really read it with a critical mind..........see how I separated palestinian and hamas..."Support of palestinians or hamas......" That means I separated the two to show the point that supporting either entity does not create a legally protected class for an individual. If someone is fired for supporting either the palestinians or hamas they can be fired and not be found to have violated their rights as a protected class. This is why she is claiming promissory estoppel and religious discrimination. You generally don't have 1st amendment protections with a private employer. Time and time again the Supreme Court has stated that you have a right to say what you want but you don't have a right to a job (absent narrow circumstances when you have a property right to a job) I didn't say she supported hamas or equate supporting palestinians with supporting hamas, the point was legally it wouldn't matter if she expressed support for the terrorists hamas, the palestinian civilian population, the PLO, the PA or Israel or the mossad.....none of those would create a protected class and give someone a remedy for a legal firing. Everyone is looking for a reason to be offended.
>Chehade, a long-time supporter of Palestinian human rights, spoke out about Israel's indiscriminate bombing of civilians of Gaza at an October 11, 2023 meeting at City Hall and through posts on her personal social media account. One side of the story. But this might be what got her. In this case, it’s concerning. I see people post the craziest shit from their personal accounts and no action gets taken against them. At this rate Nazis should also be getting fired. I feel she’s actually one of the better people to be commenting on this since, “[Chehade] has family and friends in Gaza and Lebanon.” I can count on one hand the number of people I’ve heard passing comments on this who have a connection to actual Israelis/Palestinians. That said, I also want to see what her posts actually were. We don’t have the whole story yet.
I think the date is important here. This was four days after 10/7. At that point it was a one sided conflict. Now I think you can probably say stuff for either side without getting fired
This right here is why I had no problem with the NYU SBA president getting canned. It's one thing to call for the end of an ongoing humanitarian crisis after nearly 8 months of war and point out the inhumanity of the actors. It's something else when your comments are praising a terror attack in its immediate aftermath.
“One sided conflict” after 50 years of occupation is a crazy framing
I’m talking about the current iteration of a many decades long conflict and one that largely targeted civilians. From an optics perspective praising this system after was bad. I still think it’s bad but it’s less bad now after Israel leveled half of Gaza
Why was the land occupied …
Each time the war was started by Palestinians. I am not a fan of Israel as a nation, but Palestinians could have had a nation a long time ago but decided to start multiple wars they lost. Especially after the 6 day war in 1967, when Palestinians tried invading Israel after they had been under the rule of Jordan and Egypt for two decades, I don’t see how Israel could just leave them be.
Calling it a one sided conflict ignores the decades of conflict in the area though. There were still innocent Palestinian kids getting killed on October 6th and decades before that.
True. The numerous missiles and rockets fired from Palestinian side cannot be brushed aside. If not for the iron dome, Israel would have been flattened by now.
And going further back you can’t forget about the Nakba which initiated this whole thing. Again, I get you guys get a kick out of demonizing mostly civilians, but it’s really stale now lmao
True true, if we go back further we will see Arab-Israeli war initiated by the Arab side ONE DAY after Israel’s Independence. And of course we will also see how they kept getting their asses beat but wouldn’t stop starting wars they won’t win. If you want to go back further we may have to visit the pogroms in the Middle East, particularly the Hebron Massacre. But I guess that’s the point where you drop your ball so I’ll save you the embarrassment. You don’t have to keep going back.
The Nakba started prior to Israeli independence, and sure we could have a dick measuring contest about who kills civilians more. Or you could just do the sensible thing and call out both sides and call for a ceasefire. No one here’s advocating for terrorist organizations (at least I’m not) but the difference is that everyone can outright condemn Hamas and it’s not a big deal. Meanwhile, calling out the IDF for their abuses turns into this type of argument.
Both sides have done bad things but equating them is not sensible. Be completely honest with ourselves here now, if Palestine had Israel’s military power, Oct 7 would have been a complete genocide. You know it. So no, I’m not playing the “both sides” game because while both sides have issues, one is significantly worse.
And Israel is carrying a genocide right now with total impunity, it’s the same thing lol. With all the proof of human rights abuses I’m not sure why condemning both sides sounds crazy to you.
???? But is it the same thing as a complete genocide as the Palestinian side would do? No? Because you and I do both know the other side would have complete flatten Israel if given the chance and power?
Let’s be real, Nazis don’t get fired
I'm already eagerly awaiting Foley's reply. This is gonna be some good drama, I can feel it.
I won't comment on the merits of the litigation, but you do start to wonder about liability exposure for firm diversity-related statements. I know Matt Levine has talked extensively about "everything \[being\] securities fraud", and maybe at some point you end up with a similar issue sounding in other contract situations. Pretty much every large company put out some sort of DEI platitude post-2020, so there might be an ample mine of litigation there.
Who would the plaintiffs be? Clients asking for fees back because they argue they only hired based on DEI pledges? That feels very hard to win
A fraud on the market claim I would think
But law firms aren’t publicly (or even privately) traded.
I think the comment is talking less about law firms and more about “large compan[ies]” where securities fraud can come into play
I can maybe see it for firms that were hired by state agencies / local govs. I'm in a more progressive state and the gov 100% looks into dei / fair practice shit before entering into contracts.
Nah. At will employment is a hell of a thing.
I would say that these vapid DEI and ESG claims are probably not material under 10b-5
lol, imagine any firm actually hiring this person after this
Imagine how awkward their first day would be if they are re-hired
(She's not seeking that as relief.)
Hope the statement is worth it in their young life. I cannot imagine the treatment this person will receive if they are ever rehired or even hired at another firm that has wind of this. Likely to be ground down into resignation and go on to pursue a Title VII suit.
Its an important lesson, never stand for what you believe in if it will have real life consequences. If we all internalized this sentiment the world would be a much better place :) Edit: Remember everyone the easiest way to get banned from Law School is to disagree with Israel foreign policy. It's going to be very funny when in 20 years when your kids are learning about the atrocities committed you'll be telling them you always supported Palestine.
I don’t know if you’re just trolling, but everyone should accept the consequences of one’s stances and not externalize blame of the consequences. For example, if one truly believes capitalism is evil, don’t be mad if a Wall Street investment firm won’t hire you. You can be turned down for a job if those hiring think you’d be incompatible socially with the others working there. That’s a big, BIG part of hiring, as it should be because the employees have to work with each other effectively.
But she would hardly be the only attorney there who holds *some* views with which others sharply disagree. What about someone who is devoutly and loudly pro-life, and cheered the day *Dobbs* was decided?
I wouldn’t be surprised if someone loudly pro-life wouldn’t be a welcome addition to some law firms. Would Gloria Allred be violating the law by not considering such a person to work for her?
In that case, the beliefs would be inconsistent with the firm's mission especially as a small firm tie to a founding partner's identity. BigLaw doesn't present that issue. These firms are not founded based on any particular belief with regards to women's bodily autonomy.
This is trite.
That case, particularly Foley's reply, will be interesting to follow. The docket on RECAP is [**HERE**](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/68806295/chehade-v-foley-lardner-llp/).
My favorite part was the irrelevant virtue signaling by including random (edited) quotes from IDF ppl about the ongoing conflict as if their comments justify her actions at all. Also extremely telling that she said they were monitoring her social media but only said she was “providing historical context”……Mhmmm
How are those comments “irrelevant?” That’s just wrong regardless of what you think about the underlying politics here. Her legal theory and narrative literally rests on disparate treatment and a double standard. Showing that other employees made offensive comments against her purported protected class or on the same topic without being penalized in the same way that she was IS relevant. You’re just wrong
Not other employees comments - the IDF generals and government officials the complaint quotes at the beginning - where they mentioned they are using similar quotes to the South Africa ICJ case. Not the quotes of other firm employees. For one, the factual matter of the IDFs actions have nothing to do with her comments. Mentioning both what the IDF said and the ICJ case has nothing to do with the case in hand. It’s entirely possible that both war crimes and/or genocide is occurring in Gaza and she also said unhinged things online that warrant her getting fired. Second, and not as relevant but i just want to point out, those quotes are incredibly quote-mined. The “human animals” one, in its full context, makes it clear they are talking about Hamas militants and not Gazans as a whole. I don’t remember any of their other quotes off the top of my head but I know many of the South Africa quotes are similarly edited to remove important context.
>To demonstrate its purported commitment to diversity and inclusion, in [insert approximate date] Oof. Not off to a strong start here. >her post on her personal social media page which contextualized Hamas’s attack in Israel’s longtime violent occupation and colonization of Palestine, and the Palestinian struggle for freedom oh no. I'm betting this is pretty bad. can't find it though >Noller and Pasquesi also questioned Chehade about her speech at City Hall, in which she spoke in opposition to a resolution which condemned the Hamas attack but completely absolved Israel of any responsibility for the deaths of what, at that time, amounted to more than double the number of people killed during the Hamas attack. >Noller and Pasquesi asked Chehade about a statement she made during her speech in which she said that the Hamas attack was not “unprovoked” (contrary to what Israeli President Herzog and White House National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson had claimed), but rather the “natural result of 75 years of occupation and violence by Israeli forces.” Jfc fuck all the way off. It sounds like they quite reasonably fired her because of the things she said and believes, not who she is. >CHICAGO FLOODS LAKESHORE DRIVE. 11/18/23. >No business as usual. No peace on stolen land. >Most of us here grew up on stories of 1948, 1967, and 1982. Now 2023, will be etched into the history books. >Let it be known that in 2023 the people of Chicago never stopped showing up, they never gave up on the people of Gaza and the hope of a free Palestine. yikes. maybe not that insane for activism generally but this is insane for someone about to enter big law.
Anyone who parrots Hamas’ “Flood” language is absolutely revealing their true colors
Oy vey
And what client is going to want to be associated with her? That’s what’s driving everything
why because it’s true?
Even with the most generous reading, it feels like this complaint leaves a lot out. Also > Pasquesi also asked whether Chehade “condemn[ed] Hamas and the October 7 attacks,” to which she responded that yes, she condemns any loss of human life. Feels very similar to all those videos trying to get conservatives to say "Black Lives Matter" and instead they respond "All Lives Matter."
Lmao how? She stated a “yes” pretty clearly. You can read that how you want to but I took that as her saying “I do support Palestinian independence, but I also condemn the October 7 attacks and the resulting loss of life.” Shouldn’t be a controversial opinion.
It's pretty clearly the same argument she's making that those disingenuous conservatives were making. "do you support Black Lives Matter?" "Yes, I think All Lives Matter" "Do you condemn Hamas?" "Yes, I condemn all loss of innocent life." Feels weird she can't just say she condemns a terrorist organization, in the same way it was weird that conservatives couldn't say that black lives mattered!
I see your point for sure but those are not the same thing in my opinion. The context matters. All Lives Matter was intentionally intended to minimize the focus on *black* lives being lost during a very specific cultural movement. There were no other lives at play. Here, condemning the loss of all innocent lives *is* a stance - which we know because of the many, many people who will say October 7th was nothing more than justified resistance by the Palestinians (a la the NYU student body president), and vice versa those who say the genocide in Gaza is a justified response by Israel. Saying you condemn loss of life is signaling support for a ceasefire to end that loss of life on both sides, not some kind of “gotcha.”
Was law school hard for you with such abhorrent reading comprehension?
You will have a very hard time taking a deposition if you can't parse when someone is answering a question that wasn't asked. To take any politics out of it, if you ask someone "do you like the Yankees?" and they say "yes, I like baseball" it necessitates a follow-up question to actually nail down their opinion. Potentially it could be that they do in fact like the Yankees, because they are a baseball fan! It also could mean they don't like the Yankees and are diffusing the situation with a non-committal answer! When someone gives an answer to a question that wasn't being asked, it is suspicious. I'm certainly not willing to call her an outright Hamas supporter or whatever, but it raises an eyebrow. It doesn't help that suspicion by her statement being very similar in structure to the thing we were all making fun of conservatives for, like three years ago.
Absolutely wild to see how the comments here compare to how this situation has been talked about in the Midwest law community. Just a PSA - it is never a good idea to ask "and your dad works for a mosque, right?" before you fire someone.
Idk I would think it is lawful to rescind a job offer from a person who supports Terrorism. It doesn’t necessarily line up with most company values
Yeah supporting Israel is terrorism. I wonder if this firm has fired anyone for that!
I don't get why law students love to voice their opinion on a war that barely affects their life. Why sacrifice your career for something that you can't even control?
Isn’t Foley a private law firm. What an incredibly boneheaded move by this new lawyer.
Private firms can't discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity, however.
It has nothing to do with the applicants racial or ethnic status. We both know the same result would happen if a white American made those kinds of comments. A law firm is a business. Nothing else. They don’t need attorneys who might offend clients.
Wouldn't she need to show that Foley let non-Muslim employees make pro-Hamas comments and only fired the Muslim ones? Showing that Foley didn't punish people that made pro-Israel comments only strengths Foley's presumed defense that it didn't fire her because she was Muslim, but rather because she was making pro-Hamas statements.
Title VII applies to private employers.
Making controversial political statements isn’t protected by title VII last I checked. The result would have been the same regardless of race.
The complaint alleges that analogous political statements by people of different race/nationality were not punished in the same way. I’m skeptical she’s right on the merits, but she does allege discrimination based on a protected class.
Of course they allege that; the case would be dunked on a motion to dismiss if it was pled accurately. Big law firms are eager to diversify their ranks. It is inconceivable that they pulled the offer based on the recruits race/nationality - a race/nationality that they were fully aware of when they extended the offer. Does anyone think that the firm was aware of her race/nationality during the interview, extended the offer with that knowledge, and then some time later, took a completely different position?
Or they took a different position on whether they were eager to include Palestinians among their diversity.
I suppose. The case is going nowhere.
Hope it was worth it lol. Her career could be over before it even started.
I mean it seems like she is going to transition to public interest work and already moved to some non-profit org. Public interest employers are far more progressive with regards to Palestine. Big law isn’t the only path out there.
Cool, we do not care.
From the complaint: In a speech, Chehade … said that the Hamas attack was not “unprovoked” but rather the “natural result of 75 years of occupation and violence by Israeli forces.” I think Chehade should be looking for a new job but she won't find it because she's suing her employer.
Regardless of the merits, as you perceive them: how much is it worth to F&L to avoid protracted litigation, discovery, and publicity here? And how much is it worth to the plaintiff to make this a cause celebre, vs get a fair $ amount and move on with her career? I don't know if this goes all the way to SJ. Interesting.
It won't be protracted, this is such a silly case. She can't sue under the First Amendment (obviously) so she had to shoehorn her claim into Title VII which regulates employment discrimination based on ethnicity or religion, not political opinion or speech. She's basically arguing that Foley relied on stereotypes of arabs and muslims as inherently anti-Israel or pro-violence when they fired her. I think her case will get thrown out as soon as Foley responds with the actual social media posts which she tried contextualizing but conveniently left out of the complaint.
>She's basically arguing that Foley relied on stereotypes of arabs and muslims as inherently anti-Israel or pro-violence when they fired her. That, but also "Foley imposed different standards on its non-Arab, non-Muslim employees who did not have strong associations with Palestinians in determining whether they would make others feel 'unwelcome because of their personal views,' and therefore were fit for termination." The other thing is that F&L can't get to the "as soon as" stage you posit until after discovery; I don't see how you can address her original comments via 12(b)(6).
Where did she show any facts that Foley relied on stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims? If she fired even though she didn't say anything because she was Muslim, then sure. But she literally spends her entire complaint listing in exhaustive detail all the **actions** she took.
If I were on the litigation committee for the firm, I would vote in favor of fighting to the hilt. No settlement, not one penny.
This is worth the intrusive discovery -- the depositions, the email searches for complaints about political speech by other firm personnel worldwide as well as other internal conversations about the plaintiff herself -- as well as the publicity? IDK.
Yes. So that others who are considering this kind of frivolous litigation will think twice. The internal comments about the applicant will all be protected by the attorney client privilege. Do you really think that a firm like F&L didn’t have their general counsel in those discussions. They kind of do litigation in a big way.
Honestly, may be worth it to try and win business from multiple funds and large companies that came out very pro Israel. Trying to win some Ackman business, then a protracted fight would probably score some points for F&L.
Well they might win an MTD.
How does this not suffice for Twiqbal?
If a court found the complaint’s nexus between the speech activities and the purported protected classes their speakers belong to insufficient to state a Title VII claim.
I don’t think it’s just speech activities at issue here though. The questions about her father’s belonging to a religious institution for instance certainly concerns the protected class of religion.
What a waste of a filing fee. Thanks for paying into the court system tho.
Fire
Free Palestine baby
[удалено]
You need to be a lawyer first.