COURT REJECTS SIDLEY & AUSTIN'S ATTEMPT TO AVOID MONEY DAMAGES IN EEOC AGE BIAS SUIT

Commission's Authority Confirmed in High Profile Case   to Seek Individual Relief for Former Law Firm Partners Demoted and Mandatorily Retired

CHICAGO – The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois   today issued a written opinion by Judge James Zagel decisively rejecting the   attempt of international law firm Sidley & Austin to avoid any possible   liability for individual relief in a closely watched age discrimination lawsuit   by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

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   a mandatory retirement age for partners. EEOC's court-filed complaint seeks   monetary damages and reinstatement for these partners. The EEOC's lawsuit was   originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois   in Chicago on January 13, 2005. The parties are now engaged in the discovery   process, and a trial date has not yet been set.

"Today's decision is a complete rejection of Sidley's attempt to avoid   the possibility of payment of monetary damages or other individual relief if   it is found liable," said EEOC Trial Attorney Laurie Elkin, who is working   on the government's case. "But it is more than that, it is confirmation   that in any case brought by the EEOC, the Commission is empowered to seek relief   for the victims of discrimination – whether or not the victims could seek   relief on their own behalf."

In the EEOC's case against Sidley, the agency's Chicago District Office began   its investigation into Sidley & Austin's compliance with the ADEA not as   a result of a Charge of Discrimination filed by an individual but after Sidley   & Austin made statements to the news media that it had demoted partners   to create opportunity for younger lawyers and referenced its mandatory retirement   age.

In its motion, Sidley argued 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 on their behalf.

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 Chicago Regional Attorney John C. Hendrickson, who is lead counsel for   the government in the case, said: "Sidley's motion was the legal equivalent   of a 'Hail Mary' pass in football – one that is thrown at the end   of a game to avoid a loss, and has little chance of success. There really was   no legal basis for Sidley's argument that the EEOC's litigation authority is   the same as an individual's litigation authority under the federal anti-discrimination   laws."

Hendrickson continued: ""We are very pleased that Judge Zagel recognized   the EEOC's unique role in protecting the public interest by pursuing claims   for individual relief and that we will be able to continue to pursue our claims   for money damages and reinstatement on behalf of partners affected by Sidley's   discriminatory practices."

EEOC Trial Attorney Deborah Hamilton, who is also working on the case, said,   "The Commission will now proceed vigorously in this case, with the assurance   that if the suit is successful, the affected individuals will be made whole   via monetary relief."

EEOC Supervisory Trial Attorney, Gregory Gochanour noted, "Today's decision   is part of a pattern of case law that has developed in the wake of the Supreme   Court's decision in EEOC v. Wafflehouse. This line of cases holds that the EEOC's   ability to bring claims for relief is not dependent on whether an affected individual   could bring a claim for relief."

The EEOC is the federal government agency responsible for enforcing the nation's   anti-discrimination laws in employment based on race, color, sex, religion,   national origin, retaliation, age and disability. Further information about   the agency is available on its web site at www.eeoc.gov.