The pressure is on at Gibson Dunn. The firm finds itself in the middle of a controversy surrounding its use of mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. Fourteen LGBTQ+ student organizations at 13 different law schools have announced they will no longer accept money from or otherwise promote firms that have mandatory arbitration agreements. As part of this campaign, they’re targeting Gibson Dunn’s arbitration policy (though summer and first-year associates are not subject to mandatory arbitration, the firm still uses it for non-attorney staff).
The open letter, written by Harvard Law School Lambda and the People’s Parity Project (student activists that have kept the heat on Biglaw firms over their use of mandatory arbitration agreements), was signed by the following organizations: Queer Caucus at Berkeley Law School, University of Chicago Law School OutLaw, Columbia Law School Outlaws, Cornell Law Lambda, Georgetown University Law Center OutLaw, Harvard Law School Lambda, Harvard Law School Queer & Trans People of Color, Michigan Law Outlaws, New York University School of Law OUTLaw, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law OUTLaw, Stanford Law School OutLaw, UCLA School of Law OUTLaw, University of Pennsylvania Law School Lambda Law, and Yale Law School OutLaws. Additionally, Harvard Law School Lambda, Michigan OUTLaws, UCLA OUTLaw, and Yale Law School OUTLaws are ending their existing partnerships with Gibson Dunn over the practice.
“Workplace discrimination remains alive and well in the legal profession—and we cannot in good conscience promote employers as LGBTQ+ friendly when they are using forced arbitration to sweep discrimination, harassment, and other workplace misconduct under the rug. The reality is that as long as Gibson Dunn or any other firm subjects its employees to forced arbitration, we simply do not know whether they are safe and equitable workplaces for queer and trans workers,” said Sejal Singh, a founding co-director of the People’s Parity Project and member of Harvard Law School Lambda.
Additionally, the People’s Parity Project announced that as a result of this campaign, Williams & Connolly will end their mandatory arbitration practice.
The practice of mandatory arbitration agreements in Biglaw first came under fire when Munger Tolles was called out on social media for the practice last year. That firm changed their policy as a result, and other firms voluntarily did away with the practice. Others required some good, old-fashioned pressure, but eventually eliminated the agreements. But, of course, there have been some firms that have held fast, despite complaints and bad press.
Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, and host of The Jabot podcast. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).