Prominent law firm faces unfair labor charge for yielding to pressure from Trump administration – JURIST

A workers’ advocacy group has filed an unfair labor charge against the law firm, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (“Skadden”), for agreeing to provide provide free legal services to causes aligned with President Donald Trump’s administration and curtailing its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Specifically, the charge document has alleged that Skadden interfered with its associates’ activities by restricting their access to the firm’s e-mail distribution lists and suppressing their attempts to express concerns about or discuss the firm’s policy changes. The associates had apparently been using the firm’s e-mail communication system to express concerns about the firm buckling under pressure from the Trump administration, and the impact of these policy changes on their work and their ethical obligations. They had also been using the using the e-mail system to submit resignations in protest of the firm’s agreement with the Trump administration.

The National Institute of Workers’ Rights (NIWR) in support of its unfair labor charge against Skadden wrote:

…we believe [Skadden] is violating Section 7 of the NLRA by interfering with workers’ right to engage in protected concerted activity. The facts underlying the charge raise significant concerns about workers’ ability to engage in “mutual aid and protection” outside the context of a union. As you know, mutual aid and protection has been interpreted to mean concerns “as employees” that implicate terms and conditions of employment. Such conditions include things like how much you earn, when you work, what you do at work, with whom you work, and your professional obligations. Several of these categories are implicated here. The National Institute for Workers’ Rights is filing this as an organization concerned about the widespread violation of workers’ rights and is not submitting this on behalf of Skadden employees.

On its statement of facts, NIWR has also alleged that the termination of one of its associate attorneys, Rachel Cohen, was targeted due to Cohen’s “call to action” to her colleagues to “not recruit for this firm if they cannot protect their employees.”

Cohen had also allegedly sent an internal “conditional notice” of resignation due to “Paul Weiss’ decision to cave to the Administration.” She conditioned her decision to stay on, among other things, the firm’s agreement to: refuse to cooperate with the EEOC’s request for employee information; refuse to terminate employees at the “administration’s directive;” maintaining DEI initiatives; and signing an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie.

Perkins Coie LLP was one among many prominent law firms that had been targeted by the Trump administration for its involvement in the myriad legal cases swirling around the president over the last decade. These actions have raised severe rule of law concerns.

Some firms such as Perkins Coie itself, Jenner & Block LLP, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP refused to cooperate with the Trump administration and were successful in obtaining injunctions and / or temporary restraining orders against the president’s executive orders. On the other hand, firms such as Skadden, and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton, and Garrison LLP entered into agreements with the president committing themselves to eliminate DEI programs and provide free legal services to the president’s causes