A coalition of Democratic lawmakers demanded the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) turn over documents relating to its “sham investigation” of several major law firms’ hiring practices, arguing the EEOC violated confidentiality rules while conducting a pressure campaign.
The EEOC in March sent a letter to 20 firms asking questions about their diversity hiring practices, suggesting such programs could violate employment laws.
“Public reporting suggests—and information we have received as part of our ongoing investigation corroborates—that you used your position as Acting Chair of the EEOC to facilitate a shakedown of prominent law firms that represented causes or employed individuals whom the President dislikes,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Bobby Scott (D-Va.) wrote in the letter to acting EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas.
“We request your prompt response to our requests for documents and information about your role in launching sham EEOC investigations, which the White House used to threaten and extort law firms into providing free legal services to the President’s allies. If you believe these allegations are incorrect, we welcome the opportunity to hear from you directly and promptly at a transcribed interview.”
In the wake of those letters, as well as executive orders signed by President Trump seeking to strip security clearances from firms and block them from federal buildings, many of the law firms agreed to do millions in pro bono work for causes favored by the administration.
The investigation ignited by Raskin and Blumenthal previously asked law firms that signed agreements with Trump about the nature of the deals and what the contracts entailed.
While the law firms all said that there was nothing in writing to capture the deals beyond what Trump posted about them on social media, in letters to the committee many cited the EEOC letter as part of the rationale for brokering an agreement with the White House.
“The EEOC’s demands included detailed personal information regarding the firms’ employees and applicants for attorney roles at the Firm as well as extensive information related to the Firm’s clients,” the law firm Allen Overy Shearman Sterling told the lawmakers in an April letter.
“Ultimately, the Firm as a fiduciary for the interests and information of thousands of employees and clients determined that resolving the EEOC inquiry, including by entering into the Agreement, was the most prudent course.”
The letter asks the EEOC to turn over all its communications with the White House, as well as all communications and meeting notes related to the commission’s March letter. It also asks for all the commission’s communications with the targeted firms and all signed settlement agreements.
Raskin and Blumenthal said Lucas appeared to violate the law in publicizing the letters on inquiry, noting that investigations can only be initiated after a commissioner files a “charge” alleging employment discrimination, which must then be kept confidential.
“By sending these ‘letters of inquiry’ to the law firms and then publicizing them widely, you appear to have violated EEOC rules and federal law. …Title VII expressly states that charges must be kept confidential and provides criminal penalties for violating the confidentiality requirement. These requirements ensure that the EEOC does not begin or publicize an investigation, which may be highly damaging to the reputation of an employer, until there is actual evidence of wrongdoing,” they wrote.
“Yet that appears to be exactly what you did at the request of the President.”
The EEOC did not respond to the substance of the letter but said it had been received.
“The agency has received and is reviewing the letter. We are committed to working with Congress to ensure the vigorous enforcement of the federal laws that protect equal employment opportunity in America’s workplaces,” EEOC spokesman Victor Chen said in an email.
Law firms have had mixed reactions to pressure from Trump.
Nine law firms have signed deals to collectively provide nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal work.
But others have sued the Trump administration and been successful in court, earning injunctions to block the executive orders.
U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, slammed Trump’s order against Jenner & Block as an effort to “chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like,” while U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, appointed by former President Obama, said Trump’s order against Perkins Coie “draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.’”
