In a closely watched case brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against the international law firm of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a written order denying Sidley's petition for high court review of the EEOC's ability to pursue monetary damages and other individual victim-specific relief in EEOC's ongoing age discrimination suit against the firm. (EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, N.D. Illinois No. 05 C 0208.)

The decision by the Court to deny Sidley's request for review means that the question of EEOC's ability to seek such relief will continue to be governed by the Feb. 17, 2006, decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Seventh Circuit on the issue. In that decision, the Seventh Circuit confirmed the EEOC's authority to seek individual relief such as money and reinstatement for partners who were downgraded from partner status by the firm in 1999 and others forced out because of an age-based retirement policy. (EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, 406 F.Supp.2d 991 (N.D. Ill. 2005), 437 F.3d 695 (7th Cir. 2006), cert denied No. 05-1481 549 U.S. ___ (10/2/2006).)

"The Supreme Court's decision denying Sidley's request for review follows a pattern of Sidley's every attempt to avoid potential monetary liability being unequivocally rejected by the courts at every turn," said John Hendrickson, EEOC Regional Attorney in Chicago.

"Although the Supreme Court did not address the ultimate merits of the question," Hendrickson added, "the Court's decision to deny Sidley's request for review leaves the Seventh Circuit decision in our case standing as the controlling law for the duration of this case through a jury verdict, and there's not a shadow of a doubt about what that law is the EEOC can pursue monetary and other victim specific relief on behalf of the ousted Sidley partners."

In the ongoing litigation, the EEOC asserts that Sidley violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by downgrading a group of law firm partners to "senior counsel" or "counsel" status in the fall of 1999 and by maintaining an age-based retirement policy for partners. EEOC's lawsuit seeks monetary damages and reinstatement for these partners. The EEOC's case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago on January 13, 2005, and the case is pending before U.S. District Judge James Zagel.

The EEOC's case against Sidley arose out of an investigation by the Chicago District Office into Sidley & Austin's compliance with the ADEA. The investigation did not follow a formal Charge of Discrimination filed by an individual, but began after the agency received a confidential complaint from within the firm and Sidley's management itself made statements to the media that partners had been downgraded to create opportunities for younger lawyers and also referenced the firm's age-based retirement policy.

Sidley first pressed its position against individual relief (including monetary damages) with the District Court, arguing that because none of the individual partners filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, and therefore could not themselves file an action in court for individual relief, the EEOC could not seek monetary relief with respect to them. Like the Seventh Circuit, Judge Zagel twice rejected that position, first in June 2005 and then again in December 2005.

Relying on Supreme Court precedent, Judge Zagel said: "The EEOC's right to bring suit seeking individual relief goes beyond that of the individual and reaches the territory of public interest, thereby allowing EEOC to seek relief for individuals, like the affected Sidley partners in this case, who could not, for any variety of reasons, do so themselves." EEOC v. Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, LLP, 406 F. Supp. 2d 991, 994 (N.D. Ill. 2005).

Judge Zagel did not delay the case while Sidley's request for review of his decision was pending with the Seventh Circuit or the Supreme Court, so discovery has been ongoing. Twenty- seven of the 32 partners who were downgraded from partnership status in the fall of 1999 have asked to be represented by the EEOC in the litigation.