>For example, Cohen said, associates at some of the 20 firms under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for DEI-related hiring practices are considering “recruiting strikes”—not interviewing candidates or encouraging them to join their firms—until firms confirm that they won’t cooperate with the EEOC investigations (Skadden is one of the firms under investigation). With early recruiting ramping up soon, this could be quite timely.
How can someone in good conscience take a purported principled stand on behalf of justice and civil rights, and in the next breath refuse to cooperate with investigations into discrimination? If your policies are as squeaky clean as you seem to believe (which I don't think you actually do, and I certainly don't), the win before the EEOC (or in federal court if you're so convinced the EEOC is biased -- an argument you would have ridiculed and laughed at under your preferred administration). There would be no better resolution than an affirmative win that your policies are not discriminatory.
I'm glad Ms. Cohen doesn't regret her decision. And while I may have disagreed with the approach (implied threat), I can respect the commitment to principles it takes to do such a bold and public thing. That said, I disagree with her principles around defending and obfuscating discrimination. And that, for me, undermines the strength of the overall position and argument.
“How can someone in good conscience take a purported principled stand on behalf of justice and civil rights, and in the next breath refuse to cooperate with investigations into discrimination?”
Because (1) the EEOC investigations are plainly in bad faith and culture-war baiting (see also, the dismissal of two EEOC commissioners, leaving it without a quorum and showing that combatting employment discrimination is not a good faith value) and (2) we’ve already seen firms shy away from taking principled stands in litigation so just trying to win before the EEOC and federal court isn’t costless nor straightforward.
I disagree with (1) based on personal experience at my prior law firm, quotas I have seen with respect to other firms, and based on client demands regarding quotas. I am firmly of the belief there is significant and widespread illegal discrimination happening -- it's just discrimination that the attorneys at the firms (and their clients) desire and like.
I disagree with (2) because that's literally the whole point of the EEOC and the investigatory model framework we have in place. It just sucks when you're on the receiving end. Not only that, to the extent you think concessions to Trump will come from the firms, you should also expect a flurry of discrimination lawsuits with respect thereto. These firms are precisely who should be taking principled stands in litigation, and god knows they can afford it if my outside counsel invoices and reported PPP numbers are any indication.
It's not on Rachel Cohen to work with EEOC on responding to their investigations of numerous law firms. That being said, law firms being bullied and sued by the Trump administration is bigger than Rachel Cohen. Law firms and lawyers should be banding together and resisting these retaliatory and extortionist like tactics against law firms for merely doing their jobs. This is a baseless attack on the legal profession and the rule of law.
I never declared Rachel Cohen has to work with the EEOC. I am saying her attempts to essentially threaten firms through her organizing, in an effort to get firms to not cooperate with investigations into their (allegedly) discriminatory behavior is unseemly and undermines the otherwise principled stance she may be taking.
She is not telling firms to not comply with the EEOC and her letter certainly doesn't say that. She is, however, telling firms to take a stand against the administration for suing law firms who had previous employees working on cases against Trump in his first term and before his election.
>"Please consider this email my two week notice, revocable if the firm comes up with a satisfactory response to the current moment, which should include at minimum . . . refusal to cooperate with the EEOC’s request for personal information of our colleagues clearly targeted at intimidating non-white employees"
From her interview with David Lat here:
>"Cohen said, associates at some of the 20 firms under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for DEI-related hiring practices are considering “recruiting strikes”—not interviewing candidates or encouraging them to join their firms—until firms confirm that they won’t cooperate with the EEOC investigations"
She is absolutely (1) affirmatively telling in her letter to Skadden that they should not cooperate with the EEOC and (2) at bare minimum telling David Lat about efforts coterminous with her cause that also desire for firms to not cooperate with the EEOC.
These points would be valid if these were good faith investigations into the employment discrimination you believe exists—they’re not. For example, nowhere in the EEOC letter does acting chair Lucas ask about quotas.
And yeah, engaging in the system would be great and within the whole point of the commission if the administration weren’t seeking baseless and costly retribution against firms based on their engagement with that system.
Again, you're assuming baseless. I firmly believe they're meritorious.
Quotes to quotas (no pun intended), are not necessary here. As quotas are achieved and enforced through discriminatory behavior that is sufficient in-and-of-itself. Quotas are evidence of discriminatory behavior.
I didn’t say baseless, I said bad faith. I make this distinction because the context in which Rachel is arguing for noncooperation is larger than that which you’re considering. What the administration is doing with big law writ large is bullying and intimidation—surely you can’t deny that? Your context window appears to be just EEOC focused, while hers (and mine) include Trump’s order re: PW, Perkins, and Jenner.
If you disagree that the administration is trying to intimidate big law firms, what evidence would convince you to update your bayesian priors? Anything short of an explicit quotation eg, “I am trying to intimidate?”
>"if the administration weren’t seeking baseless and costly retribution"
I do agree the administration is simultaneously intimidating big firms on bad faith charges while also pursuing a meritorious claim! I think that's by design -- to wrap the baseless crap up with something that is meritorious, to score wins on the baseless crap at the same time.
I am saying the proper and due thing to do -- if you truly believe this is baseless, bad faith, choose your words -- is to engage with the discrimination investigation and prove yourself the good guys. If you want to fight the Trump administration (as Rachel argues -- and has costs!), the proper way is to do it with the EEOC as the good guy. Not as the bad guy.
Separately, would love your thoughts on diversity in big law at all. In your view, is it an issue that, for example, women constitute a majority of law firm associates, while being underrepresented among partners (only about 28% of law firm partners being women in 2023)? I can find a racial example if you’d like to avoid any sort of “lifestyle” argument.
You've been relegated to writing about an associate at Skadden because the partners there and at Paul, Weiss and the other targeted firms who've capitulated to this fascist regime are profiles in cowardice. Bertolt Brecht wrote a play about this phenomenon as Hitler was consolidating power in 1933. "In Search of Justice." We know how that ended, don't we?
These firms could've stood up to Trump and fought against him, as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block did. They've succeeded because they are right.
I think what she did was pretty brave, and also it would have probably been better for the cause to have somebody who is not a pronouns-in-bio type actually being the face of it.
This unfortunately demonstrates why lawyers aren't particular well equipped to mount this defense. There is very little about the fundamental rule of law issue and much more about the most inconsequential (pronouns in bios, affinity groups) and least defensible (an insistence on a continue ability to violate Title VII) aspects.
Any chance you cover the Atty Jessica Aber story in the DC metro. Many are saying SADs now afrer a few days; Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. #Covid You and I both suffered near death experiences and recruited for big law defense firm's with the obvious cover ups. Scadden and Perkins Coie (heavy Microsoft invention 1 & 7) are both my active clients. One of the biggest differences between us in that capacity is that my recruiting agency was chosen for an independent 3rd party Covid Audit that some Substacks are covering WIPO backed citations:
Due to its Geneva ground-zero focus & war inhibiting expository design, (albeit early) the 4 year mission peace (sic) is Frontrunner for more prizes than just the Nobel
We need more Rachel Cohens—and even more Big Law partners like her—Marilyn Showalter, Harvard’72, HLS ‘75
I see the same whining from David and all of the “defenders” of the rule of law. Where were you before January 20? It gets really boring.
>For example, Cohen said, associates at some of the 20 firms under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for DEI-related hiring practices are considering “recruiting strikes”—not interviewing candidates or encouraging them to join their firms—until firms confirm that they won’t cooperate with the EEOC investigations (Skadden is one of the firms under investigation). With early recruiting ramping up soon, this could be quite timely.
How can someone in good conscience take a purported principled stand on behalf of justice and civil rights, and in the next breath refuse to cooperate with investigations into discrimination? If your policies are as squeaky clean as you seem to believe (which I don't think you actually do, and I certainly don't), the win before the EEOC (or in federal court if you're so convinced the EEOC is biased -- an argument you would have ridiculed and laughed at under your preferred administration). There would be no better resolution than an affirmative win that your policies are not discriminatory.
I'm glad Ms. Cohen doesn't regret her decision. And while I may have disagreed with the approach (implied threat), I can respect the commitment to principles it takes to do such a bold and public thing. That said, I disagree with her principles around defending and obfuscating discrimination. And that, for me, undermines the strength of the overall position and argument.
“How can someone in good conscience take a purported principled stand on behalf of justice and civil rights, and in the next breath refuse to cooperate with investigations into discrimination?”
Because (1) the EEOC investigations are plainly in bad faith and culture-war baiting (see also, the dismissal of two EEOC commissioners, leaving it without a quorum and showing that combatting employment discrimination is not a good faith value) and (2) we’ve already seen firms shy away from taking principled stands in litigation so just trying to win before the EEOC and federal court isn’t costless nor straightforward.
I disagree with (1) based on personal experience at my prior law firm, quotas I have seen with respect to other firms, and based on client demands regarding quotas. I am firmly of the belief there is significant and widespread illegal discrimination happening -- it's just discrimination that the attorneys at the firms (and their clients) desire and like.
I disagree with (2) because that's literally the whole point of the EEOC and the investigatory model framework we have in place. It just sucks when you're on the receiving end. Not only that, to the extent you think concessions to Trump will come from the firms, you should also expect a flurry of discrimination lawsuits with respect thereto. These firms are precisely who should be taking principled stands in litigation, and god knows they can afford it if my outside counsel invoices and reported PPP numbers are any indication.
It's not on Rachel Cohen to work with EEOC on responding to their investigations of numerous law firms. That being said, law firms being bullied and sued by the Trump administration is bigger than Rachel Cohen. Law firms and lawyers should be banding together and resisting these retaliatory and extortionist like tactics against law firms for merely doing their jobs. This is a baseless attack on the legal profession and the rule of law.
I never declared Rachel Cohen has to work with the EEOC. I am saying her attempts to essentially threaten firms through her organizing, in an effort to get firms to not cooperate with investigations into their (allegedly) discriminatory behavior is unseemly and undermines the otherwise principled stance she may be taking.
She is not telling firms to not comply with the EEOC and her letter certainly doesn't say that. She is, however, telling firms to take a stand against the administration for suing law firms who had previous employees working on cases against Trump in his first term and before his election.
I literally don't know what you're talking about.
From her letter:
>"Please consider this email my two week notice, revocable if the firm comes up with a satisfactory response to the current moment, which should include at minimum . . . refusal to cooperate with the EEOC’s request for personal information of our colleagues clearly targeted at intimidating non-white employees"
From her interview with David Lat here:
>"Cohen said, associates at some of the 20 firms under investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for DEI-related hiring practices are considering “recruiting strikes”—not interviewing candidates or encouraging them to join their firms—until firms confirm that they won’t cooperate with the EEOC investigations"
She is absolutely (1) affirmatively telling in her letter to Skadden that they should not cooperate with the EEOC and (2) at bare minimum telling David Lat about efforts coterminous with her cause that also desire for firms to not cooperate with the EEOC.
These points would be valid if these were good faith investigations into the employment discrimination you believe exists—they’re not. For example, nowhere in the EEOC letter does acting chair Lucas ask about quotas.
And yeah, engaging in the system would be great and within the whole point of the commission if the administration weren’t seeking baseless and costly retribution against firms based on their engagement with that system.
Again, you're assuming baseless. I firmly believe they're meritorious.
Quotes to quotas (no pun intended), are not necessary here. As quotas are achieved and enforced through discriminatory behavior that is sufficient in-and-of-itself. Quotas are evidence of discriminatory behavior.
I didn’t say baseless, I said bad faith. I make this distinction because the context in which Rachel is arguing for noncooperation is larger than that which you’re considering. What the administration is doing with big law writ large is bullying and intimidation—surely you can’t deny that? Your context window appears to be just EEOC focused, while hers (and mine) include Trump’s order re: PW, Perkins, and Jenner.
If you disagree that the administration is trying to intimidate big law firms, what evidence would convince you to update your bayesian priors? Anything short of an explicit quotation eg, “I am trying to intimidate?”
>"I didn't say baseless, I said bad faith"
I mean...
>"if the administration weren’t seeking baseless and costly retribution"
I do agree the administration is simultaneously intimidating big firms on bad faith charges while also pursuing a meritorious claim! I think that's by design -- to wrap the baseless crap up with something that is meritorious, to score wins on the baseless crap at the same time.
I am saying the proper and due thing to do -- if you truly believe this is baseless, bad faith, choose your words -- is to engage with the discrimination investigation and prove yourself the good guys. If you want to fight the Trump administration (as Rachel argues -- and has costs!), the proper way is to do it with the EEOC as the good guy. Not as the bad guy.
Separately, would love your thoughts on diversity in big law at all. In your view, is it an issue that, for example, women constitute a majority of law firm associates, while being underrepresented among partners (only about 28% of law firm partners being women in 2023)? I can find a racial example if you’d like to avoid any sort of “lifestyle” argument.
If not, why not, and if so, what should be done?
You've been relegated to writing about an associate at Skadden because the partners there and at Paul, Weiss and the other targeted firms who've capitulated to this fascist regime are profiles in cowardice. Bertolt Brecht wrote a play about this phenomenon as Hitler was consolidating power in 1933. "In Search of Justice." We know how that ended, don't we?
These firms could've stood up to Trump and fought against him, as WilmerHale and Jenner & Block did. They've succeeded because they are right.
I think what she did was pretty brave, and also it would have probably been better for the cause to have somebody who is not a pronouns-in-bio type actually being the face of it.
This unfortunately demonstrates why lawyers aren't particular well equipped to mount this defense. There is very little about the fundamental rule of law issue and much more about the most inconsequential (pronouns in bios, affinity groups) and least defensible (an insistence on a continue ability to violate Title VII) aspects.
100%
Good for her. I anticipate that JD Vance will win the next presidency so MERIT is here to stay. She can always learn to code.
Oops. I just read that Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP kissed the ring.
The firm will do much better Rachel-less
David,
Any chance you cover the Atty Jessica Aber story in the DC metro. Many are saying SADs now afrer a few days; Sudden Adult Death Syndrome. #Covid You and I both suffered near death experiences and recruited for big law defense firm's with the obvious cover ups. Scadden and Perkins Coie (heavy Microsoft invention 1 & 7) are both my active clients. One of the biggest differences between us in that capacity is that my recruiting agency was chosen for an independent 3rd party Covid Audit that some Substacks are covering WIPO backed citations:
¬🦅 Ånti-ĐØ$•§ier🕊
𝕎ℍ𝕆-to-𝕊𝕋𝕆ℙ℠
https://open.substack.com/pub/covidandvaxfaqs/p/top-25
Dr. Peter McCullough gives it a raving review for it's accurate research
𝕎ℍ𝕆-to-𝕊𝕋𝕆ℙ℠
https://whotostop.org
Due to its Geneva ground-zero focus & war inhibiting expository design, (albeit early) the 4 year mission peace (sic) is Frontrunner for more prizes than just the Nobel