iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

DOMA-Defending Law Firm Employees Targeted By Online Campaign


First Posted: 04/22/11 07:46 PM ET Updated: 06/22/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- A progressive organization is targeting employees at the law firm King & Spalding with an online campaign aimed at preventing House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) from using taxpayer money to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a case that one of King & Spalding's partners has agreed to lead.

More than 31,000 individuals have signed a petition started by the grassroots organizing group CREDO Action objecting to House Republicans hiring King & Spalding partner Paul Clement, who previously served as President Bush's solicitor general, to defend DOMA using public funds. The firm is poised to rake in up to $500,000 in taxpayer dollars to represent the House GOP, who would like the judiciary to uphold the law that defines federal marriage as being between one man and one woman.

"Speaker Boehner, stop using taxpayer money to defend the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act," reads the petition. "If you want to spend $500,000 to hire high-priced lawyers to stand on the wrong side of history, you should do so on your own dime."

Because CREDO wants employees of King & Spalding to know about the petition, the group has targeted them with Facebook ads that direct them to it. On Facebook, it's possible to target ads toward people who list specific employers. There are approximately 450 people on the social networking site who are associated with King & Spalding. Some of them may be former employees, and there are likely a large number of individuals who don't list their place of work on their profiles. But that group, at the very least, represents a network of people affiliated with the firm.

"The ad is definitely getting noticed," said CREDO Action Campaign Manager Matt Lockshin. "It has been shown 6,673 times to the 440 people we're targeting. And it's been clicked on 41 times, which means as many as 10 percent of the people who have identified themselves as employees of King and Spalding on Facebook have clicked on it."

An image of the ad:

King & Spalding employees may be clicking, but publicly, they're staying mum. The Huffington Post put out more than a dozen calls or emails to attorneys at the firm -- some of whom are openly gay, some of whom sit on the firm's Diversity Committee -- and none were returned, save one, which ended abruptly when the lawyer learned whose call she was returning.

"It's appalling that a company like King and Spalding that actively touts diversity as a core value would turn around and defend a discriminatory law that treats its own employees like second class citizens," said Lockshin. "As a company that works for social change, we know that corporations have a choice. CREDO has chosen to stand up for marriage equality. And we thought it was important that the lawyers and staff at King and Spalding face the choice their company has made to stand on the wrong side of history."

For some gay rights advocates, the most troubling part of this situation is a clause in the contract signed between King & Spalding and the House of Representatives that bars the firm's employees from engaging in any advocacy to "alter or amend" DOMA.

The provision states that "partners and employees who do not perform services pursuant to this Agreement will not engage in lobbying or advocacy for or against any legislation...that would alter or amend in any way the Defense of Marriage Act and is pending before either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S. Senate or any committee of either body during the term of the Agreement."

"This particular provision adds insult to injury," said the Human Rights Campaign's Fred Sainz in an interview with Metro Weekly. "Not only is K&S promoting discrimination, they also are muzzling their own employees from opposing discrimination and doing what's right."

Jon Davidson, legal director at Lambda Legal, told The Huffington Post that this sort of clause is far from standard in contracts.

"It's basically a gag rule on all employees," he said. "I've never really seen that sort of provision before, and I believe it violates some provisions of state employment law."

Les Zuke, King & Spalding's director of communications, refused to comment specifically on the advocacy clause.

"As a matter of policy, we do not discuss our client representations," he said. "Therefore, the question you're asking me and the direction you're going in lead to questions I cannot answer."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- A progressive organization is targeting employees at the law firm King & Spalding with an online campaign aimed at preventing House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) from using taxpayer mone...
WASHINGTON -- A progressive organization is targeting employees at the law firm King & Spalding with an online campaign aimed at preventing House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) from using taxpayer mone...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 209
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:24 PM on 04/28/2011
This is highhanded and may backfire. There is no way to expect the public to respect a SCOTUS decision made after hearing only one side of a legal argument. It doesn't matter
whether Holder agrees with the law or not.

Its incredible that the Attorney General of the US does not want both sides of a legal argument that effects hundred of millions of Americans on BOTH sides of the issue an opportunity to have a full hearing with all sides represented.

I think Boehner is right to hire counsel to defend the constitutionality of the act so the Court can hear all arguments on both sides of the issue before reaching a decision. To do otherwise is irresponsible.

Shame on Holder for shirking his duty to defend the statute which hundreds of millions of Americans whose representatives passed the act, and who will now be denied representation during the legal arguments.

And shame on the pusillanimous King and Spalding for caving into an interest group that obviously is unwilling to allow both legal positions to be presented to the SCOTUS for consideration.They must not feel too comfortable with the legal merits of their challenge, if they fear allowing both sides to be presented.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bradenton
12:28 PM on 04/24/2011
These lawyers are just behaving like good Nazis.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
eddw88
11:55 AM on 04/24/2011
Stop behaving like republicans. Leave this firm and its employees alone. DOMA is wrong, but attacking those hired to defend it because you don't like it is behavior akin to republicans.

Stay on the correct side. This fight didn't start yesterday AND it will not finish today, as this firm isn't where we will win the war against those so ignorant in our society.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ira Meyers
Blogger,Proud Liberal
01:51 PM on 04/24/2011
I agree with you, however Not with my money.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:55 PM on 04/24/2011
Paul Clement is not a public defender and DOMA is not some kind of defendant who can’t afford an attorney and is entitled to public defense under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. Paul Clement’s job is not to defend whoever comes before him. Attorneys in private practice are responsible for the cases they choose and can make their own decisions. Clement chose to side with discrimination. That’s why he deserves the public condemnation HRC and the rest of us are giving him.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thanks4Watching
Daily dose of cynicism
12:45 AM on 04/24/2011
I hope same-sex marriage passes, just so I can listen to all the angry fanatics complaining that it ruins 'traditional' marriage.

I swear, this crap is comedy gold.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Georgious Bushus
11:47 PM on 04/23/2011
hmmm i do t like when anyone use words targeting, specially for signing one piece of paper to express one political ground, that is very very very unamerican
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:45 PM on 04/23/2011
It is hard to imagine that any promising associates want to work in the kind of top-down oppressive corporate climate King & Spalding have created with the gag order for employees. No self-respe­cting gay attorney would.

This isn't the first time King and Spalding have engaged in discrimina­tion. King & Spalding thought that the awarding of partnershi­ps in their firm was exempt from anti-discr­imination laws:

http://www­.law.corne­ll.edu/sup­ct/html/hi­storics/US­SC_CR_0467­_0069_ZO.h­tml”
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:49 PM on 04/23/2011
Here is the link for the Supreme Court ruling on Hishon v. King & Spalding again:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0467_0069_ZO.html
hellinahandcart
Your silence will not protect you.
12:27 PM on 04/23/2011
Thanks for the link to the petition, Amanda. Usually I get petitions from CREDO, but hadn't seen this one.

Keep up the good work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Balancement
Timendi causa est nescire. -- Seneca
12:44 PM on 04/23/2011
You need a nice round #500. You deserve it.
hellinahandcart
Your silence will not protect you.
01:31 PM on 04/23/2011
Thanx- backatcha!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:15 PM on 04/23/2011
Make that 502.
hellinahandcart
Your silence will not protect you.
08:32 AM on 04/24/2011
Thanx Jack, and backatchoo, too!
11:38 AM on 04/23/2011
This is the fake transparency that Obama and the left want on campaign financing. Use the data to harass the opposition.
thebigbike
ran away to be a cowboy
12:49 PM on 04/23/2011
well, what goes around comes around, or as ye sow so shall ye reap sow the wind reap the whirlwind.

the blacklist against LGBT folks has been for manymany decades so pervasive it didnt need to be spoken that a timely tiny little bit of turnaround seems like a huge deal get used to to it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AdamWest1313
Hardcore Agnostic
03:13 PM on 04/23/2011
Rofl, this has nothing to do with Obama, and you STILL bring him in. You really are obsessed with that guy.
04:25 PM on 04/23/2011
trawl with a one-track mind.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
08:00 AM on 04/24/2011
Agree.  On any topic, Up North always says something bashing Obama.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rextrek
50yr old, Moderate-liberal in S.NJ/Phila
11:04 AM on 04/23/2011
well the bottom line.....all this WILL be in future history books.....and - the thing is....where do you wanna be seen in America's on-going struggle to LIVE UP TOO what it Drones on and on about 24/7, 356 days a year..Liberty & Justice for All.....All men are created Equal...blah blah blah ..what side of History do you wanna fall on?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
nikflorida
10:25 AM on 04/23/2011
Why should the state, which makes no judgment about the QUALITY of the relationsh­ip between two opposite-s­ex people, make a judgment based on the gender of those two people in deciding which citizens to sell that license to and which not? That's discrimina­tion in its most obvious sense. In Loving-vs-­Virginia, the SCOTUS decided that the state couldn't make that judgment based on the RACE of the individual­s, in accordance with the 14th amendment; you'd think this would be no different.

It's quite obvious, from SCOTUS precedent, that this law is clearly unconstitutional, and not worthy of expending taxpayer money to defend. You'd think Boehner, whose own district constituency is opposed to DOMA, would get this. Especially if "we're broke."
11:33 AM on 04/23/2011
Distracts their "base" from paying attention to how the GOP is giving this country away to a handful of billionaires. It's called "misdirection" and it's worked for the GOP since Reaganhood.
09:52 AM on 04/23/2011
Progressives fail sometimes because they believe Conservatives can be embarrassed into doing the right thing. If you want this law firm to reconsider, help find jobs for its most promising associate attorneys and make them switch firms. Defections are very painful to a high profile law firm that knows the very best lawyers are so much better than average lawyers. Partners will get angry at losing talent and question the bottom-line implications of defending DOMA from within. Clients will only drop you if you lose your best talent.
11:34 AM on 04/23/2011
Good point.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
07:26 PM on 04/23/2011
What makes you think the best won't be leaving King & Spalding?

The firm signed a contract that requires King & Spalding employees to support discrimination or to remain silent on the most important civil rights issue of the day.

I suspect very few young promising associates want to work in that kind of top-down oppressive corporate climate. I know I wouldn't. No self-respecting gay attorney would. This isn't the first time King and Spalding have engaged in discrimination. King & Spalding thought that the awarding of partnerships in their firm was exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

Read the Supreme Court ruling for Hishon v. King & Spalding:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0467_0069_ZO.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LonosCurse
Some may never live, but the crazy never die
10:40 PM on 04/23/2011
I'll buy you a beer if one attorney ditches his job on principle.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rand Johnson
09:43 AM on 04/23/2011
A law firm doing something in questionable taste? ...and I thought lawyers were good people.
hellinahandcart
Your silence will not protect you.
12:32 PM on 04/23/2011
LOL!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LonosCurse
Some may never live, but the crazy never die
10:41 PM on 04/23/2011
Now that's funny!
09:16 AM on 04/23/2011
Good, take on the dirt bags
09:08 AM on 04/23/2011
There would be no protests if King and Spaulding took this case Pro Bono.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rand Johnson
09:42 AM on 04/23/2011
No. There would be. It just wouldn't be has sadly ironic.
08:20 AM on 04/23/2011
I know that the orange-meister Boehner said that the $500,000 should come out of the DOJ budget, but President Obama certainly didn't authorize that ridiculous waste of money. Congress can't sign contracts. Who authorized this contract, exactly with federal budget, and who signed it?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
10:11 AM on 04/23/2011
I can promise you that there will be a law suit against Boehner for doing this by mid-week.
11:40 AM on 04/23/2011
I sure hope so. Otherwise, what's next? Being fired from you job because of your political beliefs? Having to vote with the boss to keep your job? Threatened with unemployment because you believe there is global warming? Or that nuclear radiation can kill you?

There's one helluva slipper slope here. That Congress has set the sled running down hill on this principal is absolutely APPALLING.