Trump: US firm rejects suspicion that DEI agenda affected decision
Morrison Foerster (MoFo) has agreed to pay damages to the Good Law Project (GLP) and the trans man it supported in a discrimination claim against the US law firm’s London office.
The claim sought damages of £25,000 and a declaration that MoFo had engaged in unlawful discrimination for allegedly “reneging” on an agreement to represent the man.
GLP said it approached the London office of MoFo in February to ask whether it would be willing to help it and the man on a matter where he was seeking to assert his transgender rights. Though originally MoFo said it had approval to do so, a week later it said it could not take on the matter.
The letter before action we reported in March said the claimants were “understandably concerned” that, in the light of the anti-diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) agenda in the US under President Trump, “pressure has been placed on solicitors in the UK to act in a way that is unlawful and promotes transphobia”.
MoFo agreed to pay the full £25,000 plus legal costs but without admitting liability. London firm Brett Wilson acted for the claimant.
GLP said that, in ‘open’ correspondence, MoFo had earlier admitted that “the potentially controversial nature of issues raised by the litigation” had been among its reasons for not taking the man on as a client.
When asked what this meant, solicitors acting for MoFo refused to answer. GLP said: “However, they continued to assert that the decision was ‘in no sense tainted by discrimination’ and denied it had ‘anything to do with political events in the US’.”
The trans man will receive £5,000 of the damages, with the GLP taking the rest. It will donate £5,000 each to Trans+ Solidarity Alliance, Equality for Trans Families, Trans Legal Clinic and the Gender Identity Research & Education Society.
MoFo was one of 20 prominent law firms that in March received letters from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission demanding information on their DEI policies on the basis that they may “entail unlawful disparate treatment in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, or unlawful limiting, segregating, and classifying based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics”.
We have approached MoFo for comment.
