Recent Development by Matthew A. Woolf
DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations (DynMcDermott) fired their in-house counsel, Kordice Douglas, after the black female attorney informally disclosed information relating to inter-office complaints of discrimination to a third party. DynMcDermott had hired Douglas to “review procurement contracts, oversee ongoing litigation, and assist DynMcDermott's human resources department with legal issues;” as such, she “was privy to all of her employer's legal files and confidential information concerning employee disputes.” Given Douglas's familiarity with DynMcDermott's employment practices, the company asked her to attend a meeting between DynMcDermott and several Department of Energy (DOE) auditors. Two weeks after the meeting, Douglas's supervisor, unhappy with Douglas's unprofessional conduct during the meeting, indicated in a performance evaluation that “Douglas had failed to exercise good judgment during the . . . meeting with the DOE officials.” Dissatisfied with her performance evaluation, Douglas drafted a response letter which contained information relating to inter-office complaints of discrimination, as well as information relating to the representation of a client in a discrimination matter. Douglas then presented the response letter to her supervisor, three other DynMcDermott employees, and to a whistle-blower officer with the DOE.
Upon learning that Douglas had disseminated her response letter outside the confines of the company, DynMcDermott terminated her employment. Douglas filed charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and subsequently filed suit in federal district court alleging retaliation under Title VII. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana found for Douglas on her Title VII retaliation claim. Employing a deferential standard of review, the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and held that, as a matter of law, Title VII does not afford protection to conduct that breaches the ethical duties of the legal profession. Douglas v. DynMcDermott Petroleum Operations Co., 144 F.3d 364 (5th Cir. 1998).
About the Author
Matthew A. Woolf.
Citation
73 Tul. L. Rev. 2195 (1999)