Jinan
Chehade
moved
to
Chicago
to
begin
her
new
job
as
a
Foley
&
Lardner
associate,
but
the
firm
abruptly
revoked
her
offer
following
public
statements
she
made
over
the
situation
in
Gaza.
After
Chehade
spoke
publicly
at
a
rally,
both
denouncing
the
October
7
Hamas
attacks
while
blaming
Israeli
government
policy
for
the
conditions
that
motivated
the
violence,
the
firm
called
her
in
to
grill
her
over
her
past
comments
and
affiliations.
Foley
would
revoke
her
offer
the
day
before
she
was
set
to
start.
She
then
sued
the
firm
on
a
number
of
grounds,
including
a
claim
that
the
firm
should
be
held
accountable
for
backing
out
of
its
promised
job
offer.
Yesterday,
the
court
dismissed
this
claim
without
prejudice
and
gave
her
an
opportunity
to
amend.
Her
civil
rights
claims
remain.
In
the
immediate
aftermath
of
October
7,
more
than
a
few
lawyers
faced
career
consequences
for
speaking
out
about
the
situation.
That
said,
the
range
of
comments
eliciting
dismissals
varied
wildly.
A
future
Winston
associate
lost
their
job
for
characterizing
the
attacks
as
“necessary,”
while
Davis
Polk
revoked
offers
to
students
just
for
belonging
to
groups
that
placed
ultimate
responsibility
for
the
crisis
on
Israeli
government
policy
while
denouncing
the
Hamas
attacks
specifically.
Sullivan
&
Cromwell
pledged
to
conduct
background
checks
to
root
out
applicants
involved
in
the
campus
protests
of
the
subsequent
humanitarian
crisis.
Other
firms
signed
a
letter
blaming
law
schools —
a
deeply
cynical
stunt
that
made
a
mockery
of
the
very
real
problem
of
rising
antisemitism
in
this
country
—
prompting
a
thoughtful
response
by
a
Sidley
associate
explaining
that
antisemitism
and
critiquing
Israeli
government
policy
are
two
very
different
things
that
firms
should
not
casually
conflate.
So
she
got
fired.
These
responses
are
all
within
the
rights
of
the
firms.
They’re
at
will
employers
and
they’re
under
no
obligation
to
employ
someone
whose
speech
they
disagree
with.
While
there
may
be
substantial
daylight
between
calling
terrorism
“necessary”
and
joining
a
protest
over
an
ongoing
humanitarian
crisis,
firms
don’t
to
need
to
justify
where
they
choose
to
draw
the
line.
Which
is
what
Judge
Sharon
Johnson
Coleman
confirmed
in
Chehade’s
case:
Plaintiff
offers
no
evidence
to
support
a
finding
that
Defendant’s
promise
of
support
was
an
unambiguous
promise
to
not
penalize
Plaintiff
for
any
actions
she
took
as
long
as
she
believed
they
were
in
support
of
her
Arab
Muslim
heritage.
To
conclude
otherwise
would
mean
that
Plaintiff
would
have
a
“get
out
of
jail
free
card”
for
any
action
that
she
took,
even
if
it
violated
Defendant’s
values
and
policies,
due
to
her
status
as
an
Arab
Muslim
woman.
While
the
promissory
estoppel
claim
failed,
Chehade’s
civil
rights
claims
survive.
In
the
complaint,
Chehade
alleged
that
the
firm
spent
time
grilling
her
about
her
father’s
job
with
a
mosque,
an
allegation
that,
if
true,
suggests
Foley’s
decision
was
at
least
somewhat
contingent
on
her
racial
and
religious
background
as
opposed
to
the
four
corners
of
any
specific
statement.
Once
a
conversation
with
human
resources
gets
into
status
as
a
Muslim
it
raises
entirely
different
issues
than
just
separating
the
firm
from
discourse
it
doesn’t
like.
For
now,
Chehade
has
21
days
to
replead
the
promissory
estoppel
claim
if
she
wants.
Otherwise,
the
case
marches
on
with
the
civil
rights
claims.
Earlier:
Biglaw
Firm
Sued
For
Revoking
Offer
To
Arab-American
Who
Condemned
Gaza
Bombing
Davis
Polk
Rescinds
Offers
To
T14
Law
School
Students
For
Their
Controversial
Statements
On
Israel
Attorney
Warns
Biglaw’s
Antisemitism
Letter
Makes
Lawyers
Worry
About
Getting
Fired,
Gets
Fired
NYU
Law
SBA
President
Brands
Hamas
Attacks
As
‘Necessary’
Elite
Biglaw
Firm
Adopts
Tougher
Background
Checks
For
New
Hires
Amid
Campus
Protests