Hasan v. Foley & Lardner LLP, 552 F.3d 520 (7th Cir. 2008)

Brief Summary
In an unlawful discrimination claim against a law firm, the Seventh Circuit held that the “mosaic of evidence” together with unresolved questions of fact were sufficient under the “direct method of proof” for the former associate to survive summary judgment and proceed with his discrimination claims against the firm.

Complete Summary
Zafar Hasan, a Muslim of Indian descent, filed suit against his former employer, Foley & Lardner LLP, alleging that his hours were reduced and that he was subsequently fired from his position as an associate attorney in Foley’s Chicago office after September 11, 2001, because of his religion, race, national origin and color. Foley contended that Hasan was fired for poor performance. When discovery revealed Hasan’s positive work evaluations, however, the law firm claimed that it terminated Hasan because it lacked sufficient work to keep him busy. Hasan contended that Foley’s reason was pretextual.

The district court granted summary judgment against Hasan finding that he had failed to create a "convincing mosaic" of discriminatory evidence that would permit a jury to find that Foley had engaged in intentional discrimination. 552 F.3d at 526. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the “mosaic of evidence,” together with unresolved questions of fact, were sufficient under the “direct method of proof” for Hasan to survive summary judgment. Id. at 531.

The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the court included derogatory anti-Muslim comments by partners (some of whom the court found “provided input into the adverse employment decision”) together with “the suspicious timing of the downturn in his hours and evaluations following September 11, one partner's testimony that Foley fired no other associates for economic reasons and did well financially in 2001 and 2002, [and] the Business Law Department's treatment of its other Muslim associates and Foley's shifting justifications for firing Mr. Hasan.” Id. at 527. In addition, the firm hired new associates after Hasan was fired, and two partners circulated a memo claiming the firm’s financial picture was strong.

As the Seventh Circuit stated, “The record, viewed in the light most favorable to Mr. Hasan, supports neither of Foley’s purported reasons for firing Mr. Hasan.” Id. at 530.

Significance of Opinion
While this case does not break new legal ground, it is a useful reminder to law firm employers that they, like their clients, are potentially subject to antidiscrimination laws.

This alert has been prepared by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. It is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship.

Visit Our New Blog ― The Ethical Quandary

Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP has launched a new blog ― The Ethical Quandary ― that serves as a robust forum for matters involving legal ethics. The blog will help users stay current with newly filed cases, recent decisions and helpful practice tips. It also serves as a resource for quick access to relevant statutes, rules and procedures.

The Ethical Quandary is a legal ethics and litigation blog, accessible at http://blog.hinshawlaw.com/theethicalquandary/. The blog is maintained by members of Hinshaw’s Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility Practice Group. Contributors of the blog include Michael P. Downey (St. Louis-based), David J. Elkanich (Portland, Oregon-based), David A. Sorensen (Chicago-based) and Dayna E. Underhill (Portland, Oregon-based).