• removal of corrupt judges from office NO MATTER HOW SENIOR THEY MIGH BE. 
• redeploying the salaries of bad judges to reward good ones with pay increases.
• appointing judges who set a good example, not those who flaunt the rules and law.
• sanctioning of judges who violate the Rules of Judicial Conduct .
• tougher standards for judicial conduct and elimination of widespread corrupt practices that have become accepted.
• more time for vetting of judicial candidates and
• stricker criteria for vetting judges
• cracking down on attorney misconduct (which encourages/enables judicial misconduct
• leadership by judges in NY on important issues of law
• end of double standards for conduct and beginning of holding judges to a higher standard than litigants or attorneys.
• regular judicial reviews with input from litigants, not just attorneys (latter benefit from corruption)
• helping "good" judges work down caseloads with innovative tactics that do not compromise law
• appointing judicial "monitors" to surreptitiously sit in on trials and detect misconduct
• ensuring that bias and discrimination do not weaken our state's anti discrimination laws
• digitization of evidence so that manipulation of records are not possible
• wholesale review of the justice "system" with an eye toward expediting the process, not the deliberation

We The People reject the elitism, cronyism, corruption, deals, coercion, threats, sexism, prejudice against Pro Se litigants, bias against Disabled  and politics that have passed for the practice of justice over the last decade.  We want NEW LEADERSHIP and we will not "shut up" (as the troublemaking Spitzer was recently quoted as saying about taxpayers who complain about police brutality) until we get it.

We do not accept Judge Jonathon Lippman as Chief of NYCOA, and we seek his impeachment as a case fixer and enabler of corruption.   

We respectfully request that Judge Lippman and Judge Acosta step down and allow more qualified candidates to assume their positions.   

 

Kathryn Grace Jordan
President
End Discrimination Now

 

 

New York, N.Y.; August 3^rd, 2009: Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman, appointed by Governor  Patterson to head the top New York Court of Appeals, today announced that his “highest priority” during the worst crisis in New York history since the great depression, is to ensure that 1300 judges around the state are paid more and that these pay increases toll back to 2005.   Lippman is best known for his activist “legislating from the bench” style of judicial management, most recently coming under tremendous criticism for his highly political decisions which often demonstrated a complete disregard for the Rule of Law and the Rules of Evidence.   He has also personally encouraged and rewarded jurists who have blatantly violated the Rules of Judicial Conduct by promoting them and has cultivated the Commission on Judicial Conduct as an “ally” to suppress and/or cover up complaints about judges instead of effecting its mission as  a judicial oversight mechanism.

            Judicial compensation for Supreme Court and District Court judges was increased 20% in 1999 bringing the salaries to $162,100 and $165,200 respectively. l  At that time, Chief Judge Judith Kaye argued in her “Report and Recommendation” that judges should be compensated comparable to other political leaders like the Chancellor of Schools or the President of the MTA, and even suggested that judges should be compensated at the level that attorneys at top private law firms are, or at that time in the $200-300K level. Judge Kaye clearly felt that compensation in the private sector was relevant to her arguments. Both she and Judge Lippman have repeatedly degraded the "make whole" concept for litigants (i.e. taxpayers), but feel outraged that they are not being paid like hedge fund managers.

 

            E.N.D. President Kathryn Jordan (End Discrimination Now) has openly criticized both Judge Lippman and Judge Kaye for their historic practice of perpetuating “deals” where each of them would “lay up” a scheme for the other.   When Governor Patterson first suggested Judge Lippman for Chief Judge, Judge Kaye was quoted as saying “I’m absolutely thrilled” at his nomination despite knowing of his reputation for highly controversial decisions which frequently misplaced politics over justice.   Later, when the Director of the Commission for Judicial Nomination position opened, Judge Lippman returned the favor and lobbied for her appointment to that point.  Quid Pro Quo. 
            “Neither of these jurists has a good track record with respect to enforcement of the State’s laws or the federal anti discrimination laws.”, Jordan said.  Judge Lippman was on the panel that reversed the biggest jury verdict in the history of New York State  for a disabled person, the Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising case, and resorted to archaic “blame the victim” tactics to justify his actions.  Jordan said "Fifty million Disabled persons will be affected by that decisions and a hundred million working women" The Decision to “toss the jury verdict” failed to meet the rigorous demands that NY law imposes on judges for disturbing jury verdicts, and failed to meet the standard set by the Supreme Court for proving that the employer was “motivated” by discrimination and that this was the “real reason” for the adverse employment action.  "What Judge Lippman did was undo the civil rights advances of the last 40 years because neither of them appreciates that they are only in office to serve "We The People", not their private club of activist elitist jurists".   

            Jordan and other observers of judicial abuses, like Judge Watch President Elena Sassower, recently testified before the New York State Senate about the abuses by judges and violations of the Rules of Judicial Conduct, which now occur “systematically”.  Sassower’s organization regularly follows judicial activity and the performance of the Judicial Conduct Commission, the entity that is intended to monitor and censor judicial violations of the Rules.  

            “ I firmly believe that part of the reason my case was reversed upon appeal, by Lippman and Catterson as part of a “deal” wherein three judges  (Lippman, Acostand Kaye) were subsequently promoted and the errant employer avoided any liability of any kind,” Jordan said “was that the judges were jealous of the fact that a disabled woman could be paid a $250,000 base salary in the private sector.  My response to that is “if you want to be rich, go to business school and become a hedge fund manager”.   We want hard working, wise, humble, brilliant judges, not political troublemaking activist judges.   Jordan recalls a time when lawyers decided to become judges because “they had a calling…a calling for justice”.   Today, E.N.D. has observed, judges are obsessed with power plays and advancing their political agendas.  They constantly monitor other judges precedent and follow a "Group Think" where litigants are the enemy held in contempt.

            “Now Judge Lippman wants the tax payers to finance their schemes to enrich themselves after selling out “We The People”, she said. “Our answer could not be clearer: Deal or No Deal?   No Deal.”

Ms. Jordan, who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, waged a 13 year battle of disability discrimination that resulted in a jury verdict in 2005, that would have helped “millions of people in protected classes who are being paid a fraction of their white male counterparts”, Jordan claimed. Jordan testified that she invested her life savings in her pursuit of justice. "I knew if a jury heard the evidence that they would find WPP/Bates "guilty" of disability discrimination, and they did"  She described Lippman as  a “ruthless jurist” who manipulates law and facts to conform to his biases. He has been the person most responsible for the rise in judicial misconduct  next to Robert  Tembeckjian, the failed Director.   Lippman represents everything that we don’t want in jurists at this critical time when politics, corruption and cronyism are finally being vetted from our government.  He personally has rendered decisions that have weakened the Anti Discrimination laws in this state and fixed jury cases on appeal legislating changes to the law from the bench .”  Further Jordan claimed, Judge Lippman “puts politics over justice” and has “outrageously abused his authority to legislate unfavorable changes to our ADA and Title VII laws that are clearly intended to undermine the equal rights agenda of these statute.  When judge do not enforce the laws, there are no laws”.  This will result in a strong backlash, Jordan warned, and both the Judiciary and Legislature should read the voter pulse better.   People travelled hundreds of miles to testify at the Judiciary Hearings held by Senator Samspon.   There was tremendous frustration and anger toward the "willful blindness" of judges.

            Governor Patterson’s decision to appoint Judge Lippman as the highest judge in New York was clearly intended to send a message that he will oppose President Obama’s “change” agenda on the judicial front.  “Judge Lippman is obviously an intelligent jurist, but We The People need judges who have integrity and respect for the Law”, Jordan stated.   “The problem is the judicial selection and vetting process itself,  which smacks of cronyism, sexism and corruption, is now controlled by Judge Lippmann’s longtime ally Judge Kaye and the Judicial Conduct Commission, which reported the biggest rise in complaints in history, is incompetently overseen by “cable show operator Robert Tembeckian”.   .  As long as it justice is in jeopardy, organizations like  E.N.D. and Judge Watch will continue to fight for change.  

            In the interim, END and Judge Watch have a message for the Judicial Committee and Legislature that is reviewing the proposal to increase judges’ salaries in New York State: “When we see positive change in judges carrying out their duties according to the law, the issue will be revisited.  But while New Yorkers are suffering during this recession, we are shocked that they had the hubris to even raise the issue”.

As for Governor Patterson: VETO seems to be the message. 

 

                                                            ****

 

 

 

 

 E.N.D. to compile Record of "bad judges" and prepare report outside of Judicial Conduct Commission.

  Detailed Report and Findings to be Published on this Site in September.

 certain high level judges were about state of the art social models as to how discrimination manifests itself in the workplace.  "It's back to the 1950's", Jordan said, "and blame the victim".

 

 

 

 

 

 advised. " This man held the entire NY Senate hostage. He has extremely questionable connections.

 We've had enough revisionism.

 

 

 

  

An Open Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee on Supreme Court Candidate Justice Sonya Sotomayor:

 

Watching the Senate Judiciary Confirmation Hearings for Honorable Sotomayor,we gather that "compassion" is now a dirty word, along with civil rights, freedom of speech, and "in the interests of justice".   Judge Sotomayor’s instinctive response was to attempt to justify her statement.   Her advisors might have taken a step back to see that she was right before having her backpedal on this issue. 

 

The Law was designed to be "compassionate" in order to competently and effectively protect the rights of "We The People".  Being compassionate is not inconsistent with adhering to the Law or the Rule of Law, nor is it a sign of weakness or inability tobalance the scales, it is essentially necessary in order to execute the duties of a judge.  Judges who lack empathy or compassion are usually narcissistic power players who have no problem doling out judicial favors to those who can most advance their careers and to whom they will become indebted to at some future point.   This shameful trend is far more pervasive than most Americans are aware of.   It’s no longer enough to put fortha solid case with the evidence and law on your side, now you have to cultivate favorwith “deal-making” judges who feel they are entitled by edict to dispose of anything that does not conform to their personal values.  

 

We need to really examine the qualities that make a judicial candidate a future JUDGE in the sense that our founding fathers envisioned, and how these qualities comport with the duties of a judge.  Judges are impartial triers of fact, enforcers of the Law.   Where there are gaps in the laws, or unique circumstances, they must also be fair interpreters.  This endows them with a great deal of power, power that has progressively been systematically abused because we have been appointing the wrong judges, using the wrong vetting techniques and criteria, and not instituting effective judicial monitoring systems.

 

Today judges feel contempt for the litigants that they serve and for the jury system.  They see juries as intellectually inferior to them and therefore unable to ascertain the truth.  I respectfully disagree.  Juries are the only bona fide mechanism we have in place todayfor seeking out the truth and administering justice, especially on the "liability" side of the equation.  While there have historically been instances of juries who have "gone off the ranch" on damages, especially in personal injury cases, most of the time juries get it right.   Twelve men and women who have never met each other meet in a room and debate the facts and perform a "differential diagnosis" of the Truth. There is no substitute for that.   Judges are, by definition, individuals, and they often have very strong biases and opinions which they frequently impose on the legal process.   Judges will throw out cases that are bona fide if the outcome is inconsistent with their beliefs, or "sanction" a litigant who they don't "like".    The latter is almost always related to a bias that the judge possesses, almost always undisclosed, that affects their “interpretation” of the facts.    And as long as judges do not even have to publish their Decisions, or explain their assumptions, these abuses will continue.   

 

This is a serious inherent flaw in the Judicial System.   The unfettered power of judges.  Juries have a built in "policeman" because there is always someone on a jury who will "out" any scheme or pursue that loose end fact that just troubles them.  But judges are very easily manipulated, especially by skilled trial attorneys, into believing "facts" that don't exist, and interpretations of the law that are politically correct or consistent with their ingoing bias.

 

We need Judicial Reform desperately in this country.  It may come as a shock to many Americans but there are "transformational" economies that have recreated the concept of Justice with increased transparency, citizen outreach, clear separation of judiciary and legislature (as it was intended in this country), and innovative mechanisms for nominating and vetting judges.  

 

We have in America today the rise of the "Activist-Elitist" judge.   The judge who feels superior to the electoral they serve.  Because they see themselves as inherently superior (wise jurists never project these insecure predicates), they use their scholarship to advance their political agendas and their own careers.   I personally have seen judges re-write federal anti-discrimination laws "from the bench", disregard facts and evidence which did not conform to their ingoing bias, "fix" cases using attorneys as arms length agents, and decide what cases will get tried and which won't.  The latter is not based on the legal standard for dismissal at the summary judgment level, where "in the light most favorable to the non moving party", the MTD's must be examined, but rather based on some intuitive "feeling" that the judge has.  Again, the latter is almost always a "reflexive" refection of the judge's personal opinions.   Judges today feel that they can toss out a bona fide jury verdict simply because they don't like the outcome, want to change the law, advance their career, or do a colleague a favor (or all of this).   Most people do not realize that our justice system today is less like “Law and Order” and more like “Michael Clayton”.   Tossing out jury verdicts should be a rare event, by definition. And if a verdict is vacated, the law almost always requires remand for retrial, not “I am King/Queen, You Will Obey Me” rescissions.   “Settlements” should only be deployed when there are no triable issues of fact, not because the employer got caught in the act and might be hit with a large damages award.   Judges should not be concerned with “helping” their peers out of jams.  They should be reporting their misconduct.

 

To consider how far a field the concept of justice has diverged, consider the fact that Appellate Judges are tossing out jury verdicts at an alarming rate.    The standard for reversing jury verdicts in this country and in New York State is "the jury acted irrationally" and "no rationale or reasonable mind could arrive at the same conclusion", or that the judge made an error of law.  That's an extremely high hurdle, as it should be.  If every appellate judge could abuse their power to re-write the laws on the books to suit their whims, there would be complete chaos and the purpose of having a Judicial branch defeated.    Yet this is exactly what is going on behind the scenes and under the nose of Lady Justice.  It is possible because there is no effective judicial review mechanism (the Commission on Judicial Conduct has completely failed to effect their mission: To ensure that judges play by the Rules and enforce the laws, not re-write them or dole out favors).  When judges abuse their authority, they act to undermine the very values that our country was founded upon.  The consequence of this failure is that our nation's Laws and Values are being progressively eroded.  The past has finally caught up with us: all the judges that were appointed by prior administrations who did not do the "due diligence" necessary to vett judges, are now flaunting their unrestrained power and being rewarded for it.   Judges will reverse jury verdicts, re-write laws, act demonstratively unrestrained and intemperate, bully litigants,force settlements, and do so not only with impunity but actually be promoted for the same illegal behavior. 

 

There is no better example of this trend of abuse of judicial power and the devastating consequences that the appointment of Judge Jonathon Lippman as Chief Judge for the New York Court of Appeals by Governor Patterson.  Judge Lippman is not just an "activist" judge who is more than willing to do favors for his "clients" (the corporate trial attorneys, most frequently), he is more than willing to step into the role of Legislator and re-write our laws.  In the biggest perceived disability case to come before the Court in decades, Jordan v. Bates (December 27, 2007), he intentionally re-defined the legal standard for proving "pretext" in discrimination cases to make it easier for employers to discriminate.  The dire consequence is that discrimination rose 15% in 2008 (per EEOC).

 

Because of Judge Lippman and the First Department, now all an employer has to do upon receiving a complaint of discrimination, is to simply assert, but not even prove,  a "legitimate reason" and be completely exculpated.  This flawed model has been rejected by almost every state outside New York, who have adopted the "real reason" model for proving discrimination.(MI, CT, CA et al).   The latter requires that the Complainant be afforded the opportunity to prove that the employer was motivated by discrimination when they effected the adverse employment action upon the person in the protected class.   Lippman feels that if an employer says "We fired the cripple because she had blue eyes" and the complainant does indeed have blue eyes, that it's "game over".   This is the "scholar" that is the thought leader for our state.

 

What we really need to address, and very soon, are the qualities that made an effective judge who enforces the laws equitably, competently and impartially.  By Law, the judge must be "an impartial trier of fact".  He or she is required to recuse themselves sua sponte if they cannot fulfill this critical role.  Yet time and again, judges as high as the Second Circuit, act to impose their biases upon litigants.  Most of the time, they either don't have the necessary facts to render the conclusions they find, or they simply disregard those that do not fit their values.  They act out of contempt for litigants, whose “everyday problems” that President Obama so eloquently in scripted into the screening process, are of “no moment” to them.  These judges should remind themselves who put them in office.  It wasn’t the corporate attorneys and lobbyists who got them nominated in the first place, it was We The People.   That is who they serve.

 

The Republican party has tried to portray Judge Sotomayor as the lightning rod for what is wrong with our Judiciary--a judge who might actually consider the perspective of a litigant and not their own, which is the definition of compassion.   Not only is this position inherently illogical and inconsistent with the intent of our legal system, to administer justice, it is the more conservative jurists who are currently dominating the bench and imposing their values upon cases.   They are just afraid that someone might come along with different values and do what they have been doing for decades.  Inject personal biases into case interpretations.

 

What we need is a bi-partisan Reform of our Judicial system.  Both sides need to remember why we have two separate branches of government.  One to Legislate or create laws, and a Judiciary to enforce the same.  We don't need don't need virtual legislators hidden inside the Judiciary.  Nonetheless, because the judiciary is based on an arcane and complex system of rules, the latter of which often impede swift execution of justice, and the Law is so complex and intellectual, we must have scholars on the bench. One cannot adjudicate an SEC case if one is not capable of understanding securities law.  One cannot decide complex contracts if one does not appreciate the nuances of Tort Law.  One cannot enforce and uphold, and hopefully strengthen, our nation's anti discrimination laws if they do not understand the Supreme Court's interpretations of the same.  One would think that with scholarship would come wisdom AND compassion, impartiality AND fairness.  Yet the typical judge of today is more interested in judicial compensation and personal advancement, than they are in justice.   And because there is no effective monitoring mechanism, not only have we evidenced extensive abuse of judicial power, we have seen a complete failure to uphold and enforce the most important federal and state Laws.

 

In fairness to those rare ethical jurists who really do seek the Truth and to enforce the Law, one of the problems is that the Supreme Court has failed to clearly define, in non obtuse language, certain areas of the Law.  Take Discrimination for example.   The Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings beginning with McDonnell Douglas) to provide State Courts with guidance as to how to interpret federal anti discrimination laws.   Unfortunately, it issued subsequent decisions like St Mary's v. Hicks (1993), where there was too much room for interpretation, especially in critical areas like the burden of proof, the process for proving discrimination (tripartite), and the social models that help interpretation of the same (how discrimination manifests itself in the workplace).

State Courts have struggled to interpret discrimination law for decades.  Their failure was in forgetting about the intent of these laws: to enforce the Anti Discrimination statutes like the ADA and Title VII.  The failure of the Supreme Court to properly and comprehensively define the standards has led to bad local law.  A classic example would be Stephenson v. Hotel Employees, 6 NY3d, 265, 270 (2006), where the Third Department held that after establishing a "prima facie" case of discrimination, and allowing the employer to rebut it with a "legitimate reason" (that it does not have to prove), that the plaintiff MUST prove that the "legitimate reason" was false, and if not, even with an abundance of evidence of discriminatory intent by the employer, the plaintiff's case fails.  This is madness.   The case where Judge Lippman led the panel (Jordan v. Bates 118785-99) shows how lack of clear federal law enabled an over-reaching  appellate state court to completely re-define the standard for proving discrimination in a way that is completely inconsistent with the intent of the law, to prevent discrimination and to punish violators, and with state of the art social models that support how employers discriminate and victims respond.  The Law is supposed to be Rational.

 

HOWEVER, when human bias is interjected into interpretation the results are often irrational.   The "blue eyes" example demonstrates just how irrational the First Department decision to support Stephenson standard was.  Now all an employer has to do in New York State to defeat a claim of discrimination is to simply come up with a feasible explanation which the Plaintiff is expected to prove (even when the employer controls the evidence).  We didn't fire her because she was a cripple, while we were hiring non disabled replacements, we fired her because of a "financial crisis".  Thus, (and all you logicians will have a field day with this), any employer who has "financial problems" cannot possibly be guilty of discrimination.  And the fact that if there really was a “financial crisis”, it would follow that the Defendant would not be hiring new non disabled replacements.  With this decision the First Department has created a gigantic loophole for errant employers, many of whom paper their websites with Codes of Conduct that expressly preclude discrimination “ of any kind”.

 

There is no greater priority for our country today, after national security and the economy, than fixing our broken judicial system.   We need a completely new model that will be effective in a very challenging future.  We need to raise not lower our standards for judicial candidates and ensure that "integrity", "respect for the Rule of Law, the Rules of Evidence", "respect for First Amendment rights", "impartiality", "wisdom", "leadership by persuasion not coercion", "insight", "analytical", "restraint", and yes, "compassion".   Compassion for persons in protected classes who are being treated differently from their peers, Compassion for victims of violent crimes and domestic abuse. Compassion for stock holders who have been victimized by greedy opportunists.   Compassion for corporations whose intellectual property has been unfairly infringed upon, or who encounter unfair trade practices. 

 

Justice Sotomayor, do not let them tell you that “compassion” is a dirty word.  Tell them that they just aren’t using it as the Constitution intended.  Tell them that our country needs to “come up to speed” with modern justice models, that invoke more compassionate understandings of human conflict to reach civilized, fair, intelligent

resolutions.

 

 Kathryn Grace Jordan

President

End Discrimination Now  

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 JULY 9TH, 2009:  After reeling from the appointment of Richard "Vanilla" Ravitch as Lietenant Governor of New York State and appointed successor to the weak Governor Patterson, the Dems have done the unthinkable:

They have accepted Espada back with open arms and appointed him Senate Majority Leader, a position that committed dems believed Senator John Sampson would inherit.

 

What were they thinking?   This Espada makes Benedict Arnold look like a saint.   What back door dirty deals made the Dems so desperate to regain control that they allowed the fox back into the hen house?

Espada should be removed from office and charged with TREASON.    Obviously the Pubs did not want him!  And he has the most corrupt history in the Senate.  He has betrayed all Hispanic Americans and brought shame to the Dems.

 

Wake up Governor!  You will not save yourself by selling out your party.   And Senators, remember that the VOTERS will remember this act of profound stupidity come election time.

 

E.N.D. President was quoated as stating:  "The trouble started when the Dems considered having Judge Lippman, aka "The Fixer" oversee the Senate during the crisis.   Apparently, these guys missed their Law & Government classes in college and do not remember whey we have THREE branches of government.    The Legislature makes the laws, the Judiciary is supposed to enforce them.    Unfortunately, Judges like Lippman,

now head of the NYCOA,who has dispensed more corporate favors than the Pope, see themselves as Legislators from the Bench, Activist Elitists who feel ENTITLED to "interpret" the lawaccording to their own particular bias.   The Judiciary no longer has any regard for the Rule of Law, the Rules of Evidence or the Rules of Judical Conduct.  They all think they are in Vegas!But let's face it, what happens in Albany does NOT stay in Albany."   END predicts Lippman and other judges will be impeached this year as voters organize in a backlash against corruption.

 

"Expect to see jurists at the highest levels, even up to the Court of Appeals, be subject to impeach proceedings".  And expect the ineffective and corrupt Judicial Conduct Commission to be disbanded or 

the leadership replaced. 

 

 

fEBRUARY BREAKING NEWS STORY:

 

E.N.D. CONDEMNS PATTERSON APPOINTMENT OF JUDGE LIPPMAN AS CHIEF JURIST FOR COURT OF APPEALS; CITES “CASE FIXING”

 

E.N.D. (www.EndDiscriminationNow.com)  has publicly condemned Governor Patterson’s appointment of Judge Jonathon Lippman to head the Court of Appeals as a blatantly political maneuver aimed at gutting the state’s anti-discrimination laws and making it easier for employers to justify discriminatory acts at a time when the governor admits the York Courts desperately need “judicial reform”.    Passing over another eminently qualified female jurist, acting Chief Judge Carmen Cirpatrick, a female Hispanic jurist whom Patterson characterized as a “trailblazer for women” along with outgoing Chief Judge Judith Kaye, Governor Patterson appointed Judge Lippman under the usual cloak of expediency and secrecy that has accompanied virtually all of his appointments.  The appointment follows Caroline Kennedy’s abrupt and mysterious withdrawal after meeting with the Governor.

E.N.D.  President, Kathryn Jordan, stated that she personally is personally familiar with the politics of Judge Lippman who she has claimed has frequently “legislated from the bench” when it suited his purpose.  “Lippman represents everything that we don’t want in jurists at this critical time when politics, corruption and cronyism are finally being vetted from our government.  He personally has rendered decisions that have weakened the Anti Discrimination laws in this state and fixed jury cases on appeal legislating changes to the law from the bench .”  Further Jordan claimed, Judge Lippman “puts politics over justice” and has “outrageously abused his authority to legislate unfavorable changes to our ADA and Title VII laws that are clearly intended to undermine the equal rights agenda of these statutes”.  

Lippman was part of a panel of First Department judges who reversed a jury verdict that Jordan won in April 2005 in her case of disability discrimination against WPP Group’s Bates Advertising AC&R in December of 2007.   Although the evidence of discrimination was indisputable, with senior senior executives at AC&R and Bates admitting in sworn depositions to knowing about the discrimination and failing to take any remedial action, WPP, which publishes an Code of Conduct that precludes discrimination,  decided to “appeal” the case “on the law” even though Drinker Biddle, WPP’s attorneys, had agreed to the jury instructions.   Customarily this kind of frivolous appeal by a defendant employer would be dismissed as legally deficient.  The First Department panel including Judge Lippman not only granted the appeal but vocalized a clear bias about the case.   Under New York Law jurists are required to recuse themselves if they have a bias about a case.   Lippman and his fellow jurists refused to recuse themselves and instead manipulated facts and law to conform with their biases and

“legislate from the bench” adverse changes to the legal standard for proving pretext in discrimination cases.    On appeal by WPP, Judge Lippman issued a decision attacking Jordan, a disabled litigant with Multiple Sclerosis,  for complaining about the conduct of the trial judge who upheld the jury verdict, Honorable Rolando Acosta, presumptively characterizing her complaints as “baseless allegations”.   Jordan has consistently denied that her allegations were baseless and asserted that they were directed at her to divert attention from judicial misconduct.   Jordan, who took a voluntary polygraph, complained that Acosta held “ex parte” meetings with Jordan’s discharged counsel and threatened her with sanctions if she did not concede to his demands regarding her former attorney.  Jordan has repeatedly asserted that Acosta abused his authority by allowing her discharged attorney access to influence him and acting to intimidate her into conceding to his demands regarding her discharged attorney’s demands for over a million dollars in legal fees.   After Judge Acosta attacked her in his Final Judgment as “contemptuous” for making the same “baseless” allegations, he finally recused himself but not before damaging Jordan’s credibility.   There is an ongoing debate as to whether Acosta’s ruthless actions were simply lack of judicial restraint or whether he was signaling a change of allegiance to his new First Department colleagues.  Acosta, who rose through the ranks of the Human Rights Division,  was promoted shortly after the attack on Jordan to the First Department.

  During Jordan’s case on appeal by WPP to the First Department Appellate Division, Judge Lippman and the panel made no attempt to investigate the veracity of Acosta’s attacks or his motivation (after upholding the jury verdict) and adopted Judge Acosta’s position as fact.   They then wrote a decision that “read like something out of a 1960’s employment manual” Jordan said, and which criticized Jordan for “not telling anyone” she was disabled at the time of her hire or during the period she claimed she was being harassed about being “a cripple” by her supervisors.  They also paraphrased her testimony and manipulated the facts to support their operative bias.    Lippman’s Decision completely disregarded all of the evidence of discrimination, including sworn admissions from senior management that they knew Jordan was being harassed based on the perception of her being disabled, but took no remedial action, sworn admissions by the Decision Maker that he “did not know if it was more cost effective” to fire Jordan or not, and completely disregarded Jordan’s own testimony that there was no EEO department to “complain to”.    Instead, they focused on the admissibility of a minor document attesting to Jordan’s non disabled replacement’s compensation, paraphrased Jordan’s testimony, blamed her for not reporting the discrimination to her harassers, and hung their legal argument on the fact that the employer claimed they had “financial problems” and that it was more “cost effective” to fire Jordan, a “fact” that was never proven.   Jordan, an EVP and the only disabled executive at the time at AC&R  (the sister agency for Estee Lauder and Foot Locker at the time),  was also passed over for the top Bates Planning job, although she was proven to be qualified.    Jordan was not able to prove the “failure to promote” claim  after WPP’s lawyers at Drinker Biddle suppressed evidence and  lied about the relationship between the agencies during discovery. 
“The case was fixed”, Jordan claims. 

WPP’s decision to try the case, knowing that executives had admitted wrongdoing in sworn depositions, was considered frivolous at the time.  In April 2005, after an 11 day jury trial, a verdict was rendered against WPP/Bates for the  “wrongful discharge” cause of action and a $2.5M award rendered.   The damages were 60%  reduced from the “make whole” expert report. 

However, it was the decision to appeal the verdict, knowing that WPP’s attorneys at Drinker Biddle had  agreed to the jury instructions, or the law of the case that raised eyebrows.   Under the law,  if a party agrees to the jury instructions they cannot then go back and contest the outcome based on “legal error” as WPP did.     Normally a case like this would be rejected as frivolous and WPP would have been sanctioned.   Instead, Lippman and the rest of the First Department panel, reversed the jury verdict and effectively legislated new law that significantly weakened the ADA and Title VII  by allowing employers to simply assert a “legitimate reason” (like financial reasons) as pretext to dispose of allegations of discrimination.  

            Under Lippman’s order, all an employer has to do to dismiss a charge of discrimination is to proffer, but not prove, a “legitimate reason”  and this rebuts any evidence of discriminatory acts or motivation.    Jordan and her appellate attorney Robert Meister have repeatedly argued that this is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the McDonnell Douglas standard and argued in their briefs to the New York Court of Appeals that the Decision by the First Department Appellate Division to reverse the jury verdict  was“legal error” and intended to undermine the ADA and Title Vll.  The  New York Court of Appeals refused to hear Jordan’s appeal even though she and Meister proved that “courts outside New York” have aligned around a more fair and meaningful standard, the “real reason” standard for proving pretext, which requires that the employer’s motivation be considered in assessing discrimination.    The same week NYCOA rejected Jordan’s petition it heard the Bianca Jagger eviction case.  

            To add more intrigue and suspicion to the judicial appointment process, Jordan’s trial judge Honorable Rolando Acosta was appointed by Elliot Spitzer to the First Department during the period when he attacked her complaints about him, unbeknownst to Jordan at the time.   Acosta, like Lippman, had violated several of the Codes of Conduct that judges are required to adhere to.   The First Department panel which included Lippman ignored these Codes when they refused to recuse themselves but then openly attacked Jordan in their Opinion.

            “There is no mechanism for checking the authority of the judiciary”, Jordan has argued, “Judges basically have limitless authority.   This by definition encourages and enables corruption and abuse of power”.  

            The only regulatory body overseeing the judicial system is the Commission on Judicial Conduct, a body whose lead investigator interviews judges and attorneys on cable television, a clear conflict of interest.

            E.N.D. plans to publish all of the Decisions by Lippman and all of the facts upon which he “relied”.   “Now the jury will be the Court of Public Opinion”, Jordan asserted.

Jordan, who has been relentlessly attacked by these jurists over the last 13 years,

is actually a high profile socially and politically connected individual who has repeatedly asserted that she is “not anti employer, just anti-discrimination.  There’s a world of difference”.    She also cautions that in these challenging economic times that “discrimination will be on the rise and employers need to be especially alert and learn from history, not repeat it”.   Jordan, who has been a high level exec herself, does not propose that employers replace highly qualified employees with disabled applicants, but that the Disabled are given an “equal opportunity” for consideration.  “That is the Law”, Jordan said, “and it is not being enforced.”  Jordan believes that the actions of the First Department are inconsistent with the intentions of the Supreme Court especially with respect to “legislating from the bench”.  Studies show disabled workers are more productive and more loyal than non disabled workers, Jordan said.  

            Governor Patterson’s decision to appoint Judge Lippman as the highest judge in New York is clearly intended to send a message that he will oppose President Obama’s “change” agenda on the judicial front.  “Judge Lippman is obviously an intelligent jurist, but intelligence alone is not the criteria.   We need judges who have integrity and respect for the Law”, Jordan stated.   “The problem is the judicial selection process itself which is inherently flawed, and smacks of cronyism, sexism and corruption.  As long as it justice is in jeopardy, E.N.D. will continue to fight for change”.

 

                                                            ****

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

New York, N.Y., December 1st, 2008: END has learned through an exclusive interview with Kathryn Jordan, the disabled litigant who won a major jury verdict for the disabled in April 2005, and others involved with the case, that WPP conspired with the First Department Appellate Division to reverse the jury verdict in December 2007, one month prior to the Spitzer appointment of trial judge Rolando T. Acosta to the First Department, in a deal whereby Acosta received safe harbor to the Court and the First Department reciprocity in the form of a "no contest" agreement to dispose of the most important "perceived disability" case in decades.  The latter would result in effecting new legal standards for proving "pretext" in discrimination cases that would make it virtually impossible for litigants in any protected class to prove discrimination for decades to come.

 

"In retrospect," Jordan said, "The case was manipulated from the beginning".  WPP's attorneys at Drinker Biddle "cheated their way through discovery, Jordan recalled.  "They were asked to provide documents regarding the relationship between Cordiant, Bates and AC&R (the defendant agencies) and they falsely informed the court that the companies were "not related".   They apparently also refused to cooperate with Jordan on compensation discovery while Justice York was pre-occupied with the Times Square pornography case, simply declining to exchange documents.  They gave specious responses to interrogatories and withheld critical documents.  "Ironically, they did not want to settle the case",  Jordan asserted, "which was surprising at the time given the fatal evidence against them".   Instead they dragged Jordan through a decade of litigation even after depositions proved that executives at AC&R admitted they knew Jordan was being harassed as "a cripple" and hazed about her need to ambulate with a cane.

 

The case went to trial in April 2005, with Jordan represented by Laurence Lebowitz and WPP by Drinker Biddle's Gregory Homer.  Although the trial judge, Honorable Rolando T. Acosta, now with the First Department, provided Drinker Biddle great latitude in its examination of Jordan ("it was run like a rape trial", Jordan said, "my sanity and integrity were on trial without any foundation"),  the jury clearly believed Jordan and rejected the three pretexts that the defendants proffered for why Jordan was hazed and then fired as the only disabled executive at the agency.   WPP received a major breakthrough when Jordan's attorney failed to produce evidence to support their urebutted expert's claim that Jordan was entitled to $5M in economic damages, and when he also failed to prepare any medical case.   All of these errors saved WPP millions in potential damages as Jordan was an EVP at the defendants, a position that paid $250K base salary.   Jordan was paid half that.    Drinker, however, was unwilling to accept their loss and filed a series of post trial motions for remittur, retrial and other contests of law.   The trial judge rejected these arguments and entered Judgment in November 2006 in favor of Jordan.

 

However, a bizarre development began shadowing the case.   During the period between the jury verdict and the final judgment two situations collided:  Jordan was witness to several "ex parte" communications between Acosta and Lebowitz, who had been discharged from the case for cause in January 2006, during the legal fee part of the litigation,  and confronted the judge about the improper conduct.   Acosta, who had bonded with Lebowitz during the trial to such a degree that he failed to see the major defects in Lebowitz handling of the case, threatened to "act as a fact witness" against Jordan in her dispute with Lebowitz, and issued a gag order on the case, which was only enforced against Jordan, who was later sanctioned $5000.   Apparently, Acosta continued the "ex parte" conduct and actually directed opposing counsel to keep Lebowitz on the "cc" list for the case despite his termination as counsel of record.   Jordan was outraged that Acosta was interfering in her choice of legal representation and encouraging conduct that would reflect poorly on the case.  "I had sacrificed my home and life savings for something I believed in...the pursuit of justice", Jordan said. "Now I found myself in the unenviable position of having to confront the trial judge who had supported my victory with misconduct.  No one wants to be in that position, but I could not allow my case to be tarnished by scandal".   Ironically, however, Jordan's attempts to deter the "ex parte" opera behind the scenes ironically led to the volatile Acosta's subsequent tirade against her.

 

In his Final Judgment, Judge Acosta attacked Jordan as "contemptuous" for making "baseless" allegations against him, and dedicated 7 pages of his decision to attacking her personally.   While referencing Jordan's sending faxes to chambers, and admitting that many of her communications were critical of his conduct with Lebowitz, as well as his time-frame for decision making,  the jurist failed to see the irony of simultaneously condemning an employer for ridiculing a disabled litigant as "a cripple" and his own scathing personal attacks of her as "contemptuous".  Jordan was devastated by the attack, which was clearly initiated to discredit her complaints against him and destroy her credibility. 

 

But there was an even more insidious component to the jurist's behavior.   In the fall/winter of 2007,  Judge Acosta was advised that he was being nominated by Elliot Spitzer to the First Department.   He was actually in the throws of a fast track vetting process when he received notice that Jordan had asked for an investigation of his conduct.  It was also apparent that Acosta, who had risen through the ranks of the Human Rights Division, would have quite a challenge ahead of him as a liberal candidate in a far more conservative First Department culture.   Thus his attack on Jordan served two purposes that Acosta obviously felt were critical to his candidacy at the time:  to discredit Jordan's complaint against him and to convince the First Department that he was ready to "play ball".

 

Jordan told us of her anguish at the time.  "I had no idea what was really going on.   I only knew that I could not support anything unethical and that His Honor's conduct during that period was clearly not consistent with the Rules."  However, Acosta, who clearly likes to play hardball, escalated his campaign a step further once the Judgment was filed.   Our sources at the New York Law Journal confirm that he had his chambers leak a story to the Law Journal that spun the facts to make Jordan out to be the villain.   "I only learned of the story months later but now realize why I was subjected to so much visceral contempt by male attorneys during the last few years...they all felt entitled to challenge me".   Jordan did proceed with a formal investigation of Acosta with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. The investigation was drawn out and obstructed.  It resulted in a "insufficient evidence" finding.  Jordan later learned that the Commission is overseen by a Director who runs a cable TV show that interviews Judges and Attorneys.

 

Jordan was so distressed by the situation that she submitted to a voluntary polygraph and filed for Acosta's recusal.  Although Acosta finally recused himself after the case was over, the polygraph mysteriously disappeared from the file.    

 

Then Drinker Biddle, smelling blood on the flood after their humiliating defeat at trial, decided to appeal.   "It was the perfect set up", Jordan said.  "Drinker's attorneys encouraged all this nonsense between Lebowitz and the trial judge.  These guys are located in DC and they knew the politics of the situation.  No respectable law firm would appeal a case "on the law" after they had agreed to the jury instructions or the law of the case.  It would mean an automatic dismissal as "frivolous".   Homer (DB lead attorney) had to have an inside line that the First Department was in on the scheme to take such a risk".

 

In fact, Jordan's prescience was dead-on.  The First Department Appellate Division, a panel of five male jurists, rendered a decision on Drinker's appeal for WPP on December 27th, 2007 reversing the jury verdict "on the law".   It was clear from the decision itself that the panel was ostensibly outraged that Jordan would accuse Acosta of "baseless allegations", and that this led to their complete disregard of all of the facts that had led the jury to find that the employer had discriminated.   Ironically they attempted to bolster their disposition of the evidence of discrimination with criticisms of Jordan's testimony that resembled "something out of a 1940's employer manual".   Jordan was criticized for not telling her employer about her disability (something that the ADA protects), for not telling "anyone" about the harassment of her as a "cripple" (when there was no EEO Department to report it to), for not reporting the cane interrogations (when her supervisors were her harassers), and for "admitting" that Bates "had financial problems" in another unrelated legal proceeding while discussing a "reason for leaving" Bates.  "Everything was intentionally twisted around so that the (Appelllate Division) could substitute their opinion of the case for the juries".    There was also an elaborate discussion about the legal standard for the case, where the First Department contended that once Bates proved it's "legitimate reason", they effectively rebutted the allegation of discrimination.   Jordan's appellate briefs proved that the McDonnell Douglas standard for proving pretext in discrimination cases requires a more sophisticated analysis, where the plaintiff is allowed the opportunity to prove the employer's motivation or the "real reason" for the adverse employment action.   Robert Meister, Jordan's appellate counsel, and a distinguished and experienced appellate attorney, simplified the legalese to clarify: "It's the blue eyes defense", Meister said, "It's like saying we fired her because she had blue eyes, then proving her eyes were blue, and stating that this proves that there was no discrimination".

The First Department decision recited the arguments of Drinker verbatim and carefully avoided the flaws in their own legal arguments proven by the Motion to ReArgue that Meister and Jordan filed, issuing a "no explanation" denial.  

 

"In retrospect", Jordan opined, "I think the entire "contemptuous" attack by Acosta was a ruse.  I think they cut a deal and needed a cover." 

 

Jordan then decided to file her appeal with the New York Court of Appeals.   Jordan and Meister realized that the case law relied upon by Drinker Biddle, Stephenson v. Hotel Employees, and the other NY cases that supported the "legitimate reason" standard, were out of sync with more progressive courts outside of New York.  "This was not only a legitimate basis for bringing this critical issue to the New York courts, but clearly an important issue of law that had yet to be resolved", said Jordan.  Jordan was optimistic because there were several women on the New York Court of Appeals (NYCOA), including Judge Judith Kaye, whom Jordan had admired for many years. ( What Jordan did not know was that Kaye was a long time mentor of Acosta.  In one of the most ironic revelations of the case, Jordan learned that Kaye had once appointed Acosta to oversee Judicial Conduct in another state organization. ).   The NYCOA declined to hear the appeal however.   Instead they chose to hear the Bianca Jagger eviction case.  Jordan studied the choices of cases in an attempt to determine why the state's top court would refuse to hear a case on the most important disability "issue of law" to come before them in decades.  She concluded that "although they (NYCOA) plays it safe, all signs point to this being a political decision.   Knowing what I know now about how the legal system works, in all probability the panel was steered away from the case to avoid "embarrassing" Judge Kaye".  

 

  It is now apparent what happened with Jordan's case.   Judge Acosta used Jordan's case in 2005 and his Opinion upholding the verdict in February 2006 to publicize his judicial talents in advance of the appointment.   When his own fax pas' threatened to jeopardize his chances for future judicial appointments,  Acosta used his "Final Judgment" in November 2006 to discredit Jordan and to signal to the First Department that he would essentially throw the politically charged case.   The First Department, knowing that Acosta was almost certainly coming on board to their court, did a colleague a favor by backing him up his attack on Jordan, even though no independent evaluation of whether her allegations were "baseless" or not had been conducted.   The quid-pro-quo for Acosta was that he would lose the decision that he wrote favoring not only Jordan but 50,000,000 disabled persons who deal with discrimination in the workplace.  The First Department was then positioned to effectively legislate from the bench new law that will now make it significantly more difficult to prove discrimination against the disabled.   In the end. Acosta sold out the entire Disabled population to advance his career.

 

"What this case reveals is the hypocrisy, corruption and duplicity in the judicial system. Judges demand rigid compliance of rules by litigants but disregard the Canons of Judicial Conduct.  Jury verdicts, once the pillar of our legal system, are routinely reversed, despite the incredibly high hurdles for the same, and laws are rewritten "from the bench".  In my case, WPP (Drinker Biddle) agreed to the jury instructions.  That meant "game over" based on current law.   But by waving the magic wand of judicial discretion, suddenly my bona fide jury verdict was reversed "as a matter of law".   It's apparent that the only explanation for all of this is that a deal was made.   Acosta got his promotion, the First Department got to change the laws on proving pretext in discrimination cases, WPP was completely off the hook on the discrimination charges and any damages, and I was completely screwed".   If there was any doubt about whether the case was fixed or not, the First Department laid that to rest with their "remedy" that the case be disposed, instead of remanded for trial.   "That's simply not the appropriate remedy for this, even if their outrage about judges being above scrutiny is genuine", maintained Jordan.  

 

Jordan confided that the 13 year ordeal had changed her view of the justice system and left her devastated, bankrupt and homeless.   She apparently invested her life savings into the case,  confident that the truth would prevail and that justice would be rendered. Once a high powered marketing executive who had penetrated the glass ceiling to attain top strategy positions at Fortune 100 companies, and who survived two major MS exacerbations, Jordan now is homeless and bankrupt.   For someone with Multiple Sclerosis to have to endure 13 years of litigation must have been agonizing, but the disastrous outcome is unimaginable.  Jordan said the jury judgment would not have brought her "break even" with her investment or recovered the loss of two seven figure homes,  much less maker her "whole" as entitled by law, and that she now faces retirement age without any mechanism to recover her lost home or savings.  WPP's role in this scandal, as the firm that inherited the "Bates assets", remains shadowy.   It is indisputable that they refused to settle the case, and that top management authorized the perpetuation of the litigation after losing the jury trial and after it was proven Bates knew about the discrimination.   WPP has published on its website a Code Of Business Conduct that specifically precludes discrimination of any kind.  Apparently, an amendment is needed to qualify:"only if caught".

 

Jordan plans to keep the pressure on, however.   She plans to take her story to My Space and the media after the holidays.  And what a story it will be.  Power, ambition, indiscretions, corruption, politics, scandal.   Oprah, anyone?

  

 

For More Information: Info@enddiscrimination.now    OR call  917 596 231