About CJA
Our History
Our Mission
Who We Are
Awards & Honors

Published Pieces


Judicial Selection

Judicial Discipline

Test Cases:
Federal (Mangano)
State (Commission)

"Disruption of Congress"
Paper Trail to Jail
Paper Trail from Jail
The Appeals

Informing the Voters

Press Suppression

Suing The New York Times
Background Paper Trail

Searching for Champions:

Bar Associations
Nader & Others

Our Members' Efforts


Join Us!

Our Members' Efforts


Transcript of June 8, 2009 hearing: Kathryn Grace Jordan

Batch #1
Batch #2
Batch #3
Batch #4

Let me identify the documents, and provide a commentary as we go along:

1. WPP Code Of Conduct:   The case that I litigated over 13 years was entitled Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising 118785-99.   It was a case of perceived disability discrimination and gender discrimination against a division of what was at one time a fairly large advertising agency, Bates USA.   I was employed there in 1994-5 as an EVP Strategic Planning, a position that commanded a base salary of $250K plus bonus, benefits and other economic perks.    I was paid half what every other EVP was paid.   The case was not able compensation however.   It was about the hazing and harassment I experienced once my superiors at AC&R as a "cripple" once they realized I needed a cane to ambulate on a permanent basis.   It was about my being forced out of my job allegedly because the agency was having "financial problems" due to the merger of Bates with my unit AC&R, despite the fact that they were hiring Planners (my functional position) during the period in which I was being terminated.    I also was passed over for the top planning job at Bates USA.   Instead they hired a "consultant" who had been fired from his last job but was clearly not visibly disabled.     After I was terminated, they refused to re-hire me for open positions for which I was qualified.   So in the latter part of 1995, I filed an EEOC complaint and a Complaint in Federal Court.   The latter was immediately dismissed by the lovely Judge Rakoff, which is why the case was not tried in federal court, "without prejudice".    I then filed what would be the first of several appeals and eventually the case was heard in New York Supreme Court before a Jury and the Honorable Rolando Acosta in April 2005.
1     When the case was heard in April 2005, Acosta tried to pressure me to "settle".   I had waited over a decade for a jury trial and he thought I would just give it up.   I refused despite his ominous remarks.
The Jury rendered a verdict in my favor on the Termination charge.   However I only received 40% of my economic damages and 0% of P&S because my attorney, Laurence Lebowitz, did not prepare adequately for trial.   

After the verdict, there was a "legal fee" hearing.   In advance of the hearing, my attorney had a little "Ex Parte" chat with Judge Acosta behind closed doors while I sat outside calling my adversary about the "adjournment" of the hearing. (In other words, my attorney and the judge cut a deal when I was calling defense counsel out in the hallway).   After this private and completely improper meeting between Acosta and Lebowitz (I had fired Lebowitz several months earlier for cause, he had no basis for being even present much less in thejudges' chambers), I was called in and reemed by Acosta.   I was advised in no uncertain terms that if I "pursued your malpractice case" agaisnt LL, and refused to agree to the $1,300,000 legal fee demand, that Acosta would "act as a fact witness against you" and "be assigned as the judge on the case".   These threats were intended to intimidate me into agreeing to Lebowitz demands.   I realized at that time that this was not the first "deal" that Acosta had brokered in his career.    The only missing piece for me was "why".   Why would a Supreme Court judge care that much about the legal fees of a discharged attorney?   Especially when I had advised him that I intended to pay LL his full hourly fee despite his incompetent handling of the case.   Well, little did I know!.   After the legal fee hearing, Acosta started "sanctioning" and "censuring" me.   He issued what amounted to a gag order on "all of the parties", but only enforced it against me.  I then filed what would be the first in a series of dozens of complaints about him to the JCC, all of which were dismissed without any explanation or justification.   Acosta found out about the complaints (guess that "confidentiality" protection only works one way) and in retaliation leaked a very nasty story about me to the Law Journal.  That's not speculation.   I spoke with the Editor and it "came from Acosta's chambers". 

 What I did not realize during this period was that Acosta had connected with Spitzer, probably through Lippman, and a deal was in the works for Acosta to be promoted to the First Dept, effectively replacing Lippman.   That's why Acosta attacked me so visciously in his Final Judgment, where he labelled me as "contemptuous" and "contumacious".   Imagine this:   a Supreme Court judge who has just lambasted an ad agency for allowing me to be called a "cripple" and not havin an EEO policy in place or any reporting mechanism (see February 2006 RA Decision) and then attacking me six months later as "contemptuous" because I confronted him with his own misconduct.   What I did not realize was that at this very time, Acosta knew he was being considered for this promotion, and my complaint to the JCC would prove to be very "inconvenient", so that is why he attacked me in the Final Judgment.  To discredit me.   He had to discredit me to make sure that my allegations were not taken seriously.   I would not be surprised if Lippman had advised him of the same.  What I do know is that after this attack, WPP (whose counsel Drinker Biddle had advised me after the Jury Verdict that they would NOT appeal the Decision, especially after Acosta upheld the jury verdict), decided to "appeal" the verdict.   WPP had acquired Bates in 2003 and it was their legal department GC  and CEO who made all the decisions after that.   Martin Sorrell, CEO, who gets up at DAVOS and acts llike the enlightened CEO had to know about and approve of the decision to file this frivolous appeal and drag a woman with MS through even more years of litigation.   It doesn't get more sick than this.     Acosta, however, knew better.   He came up through Human Rights ad he knew that what he was doing was wrong and would damage me even more.    So I then faced a series of "appeals".  

2. The Lippman Decision to Reverse the Jury Verdict December 27, 2007:  I've appended Lippman's Decision reversing the jury verdict on my case.   What most people don't realize (because their not attorneys or have sufficient legal knowledge) is that it is virtually impossible to reverse a jury verdict.   The legal standard is that the jury had to have acted "irrationally" with respect to the facts, and that "no reasonable mind could arrive at the same findings", or the judge mis-applied the law.   Now these are very narrow circumstances and a very high legal threshhold.  Most appellate courts go to great lengths to avoid reversing jury verdicts.
First, they respect the power and authority of the lower court judge.   Second, they realize that they are not in a position to substitute themselves as trier of fact.  You simply cannot judge credibility without "being there". (Conversely if the findings are completely out of sync with the facts the appellate court has an obligation to do a de novo review).    In my case, however, neither of the standards were applicable.   The jury did not misinterpret the facts.   Bates Management admitted under oath that they knew I had been hazed as a "cripple" and that the President of the agency, also the chief EEO officer, failed to take any remedial action. Instead, Bates Management put me on a path to termination and used the RIFF as a smokescreen to cover up their discriminatory motives.   Lippman, who clearly has no knowledge of employment law, criticized me for "not telling anyone" at the time I was being hazed and ridiculed (by my supervisors who had already told me to "fire the woman with the clubbed foot"), for
not telling Bates that I had a disability during the interview and "lying" by telling them I used the cane for a "skiing injury" (which was true, but not the ongoing reason for the need for to use it to ambulte on an everyday basis) in his Decison of December 2007.  Lippman obviously does not know that it was illegal for Bates to even ask the question (you are not allowed to ask someone if they are Disabled, much less why they are walking with a cane.  Further, I testified that there was "no one to complain to" as my harassers were my supervisors and there was no EEO function.  The jury was outraged by the unlawful actions of my employer and their subsequent decision to terminate me and replace me with non disabled managers (several).   Lippman accepted Bates'
pretext of "financial reasons" at face value and asserted that because their "legitimate reason" (of financial reasons) was "true" then they disposed of the entire matter of the discrimination, even though the Defendants ADMITTED to the discrimination.  
Further, anyone who knows anything about employment law knows that "financial reasons" and "cost effectiveness" are the NUMBER ONE PRETEXTS USED BY EMPLOYERS TO MASK DISCRIMINATION.  Lippman, obvioulsy intentionally, accepted the pretext of Bates at face value, even though the Defendants failed to produce a single document that proved that a) they really did have "financial problems"; b) that it was more cost effective to fire me and hire several more new non disabled managers to   
do my job.  Instead, WE proved that they were HIRING NEW PLANNERS at the very time they were firing me.   None of these new planners had a visible disability obviously.   This evidence completely undermined the "pretext" or "legitimate reason" that they fired me for financialr reasons.  If they were broke they obviously could not afford to be hiring a battallion of new planners.
Further undermining this pretext was the fact that my supervisor ADMITTED UNDER OATH THAT HE "COULD NOT SAY" IF IT WAS MORE COST EFFECTIVE OR NOT.  That was "game over" for Bates.  If my Supervisor "could not say" if it was more cost effective to replace me with non disabled workers or not, then he clearly did not fire me for this reason. Moreover, I had testified that this same supervisor (Fidoten) had openly ridiculed me as "a cripple".     That's a good as it gets in discrimination cases.
Finally, my testimony was consistent and credible, and the jury found all the contradictory and ridiculous excuses provided by the employer NOT CREDIBLE.   That's the jury's job, NOT THE JOB OF the Court of Appeals.   

the fact that the appeal was assigned to Lippman was no accident. The whole litigation was orchestrated behind the scenes while the puppeteers LIPPMAN-KAYE-ACOSTA-TEMBECKJIAN pulled the strings.    I did not know any of this at the time, nor was I aware of the Spitzer connection with all of them.     I will never forget the day, December 27th, 2007, when I learned the decison was in and came to 27 Madison Avenue.  I went into deep shock reading the Order.   I literally fell down and had to be helped out of the Court house.   It was not just the realization that 13 years of my life that had been lost in a rigged "game",  it was really the shock of knowing ...of realizing...just how corrupt our judicial system had become.  In an instant I just knew.   And it was beyond shocking.   Thus,my voyage began that led me to this hearing.    That and a night in NY when I was watching TV and saw Robert Tembeckjian interviewing judges and lawyers on his own cable TV show!.   My mouth literally dropped.    The light bulb began to go on.  


Acosta's attack on me in his "Final Judgment" in November 2006, after supporting the jury verdict enthusiastically in February 2006 (see Judge Rolando Acosta DECISION) and DENYING the post trial motions to dismiss (which were surrogates of the appellate issues), was not just the actions of an intemperate jurist who was bullying a defenseless litigant, they were a signal to
Lippman.   The signal, which came after Acosta had become aware that Spitzer was about to nominate him, was to let LIPPMAN know "I'm on board and I'm willing to throw the Jordan case to be a team player".    That was the Acosta-Lippman deal.   In return,
Lippman, knowing that Spitzer and Kaye were setting him up for the Chief NYCOA job (and probably with the aid of corporate attorneys who "nominate" the jurists so that people like Lippman and Kaye have an arms-length role), now had an ally indebted to him in the First Department.   It does not get more corrupt than this.   

So Lippman was the puppeteer of this deal that went down.    WPP avoided a $4M verdict (including interest and expenses, it was more than that), Lippman and Acosta BOTH got promoted, Goveror Patterson got support and IOU's  from the corporate community (imagine a blind man who becomes the first gov selling out the first disabled woman who wins an important verdict), and Senator Sampson was handed a decision accomplis.    Based on what I saw at the endorsement hearing for Lippman and a very reluctant and weary Sampson, and two judges got their promotions by selling out the very people, the voters and taxpayers, the people in protected classes, for advancement and maybe more. (Given the fact that WPP had $4M at stake, I would not be at all surprised if there was some other monetary exchange here.     What I do KNOW for sure is that Lippman in his Decision a) agreed with Acosta's attack on me and enabled the same; b) made it clear that litigants have no rights in the fact of a blatant abuse of  POWER, especiallly judicial power (or so they think); c) that it was just OK for Acosta to attack me as "contemptuous"; d) that a deal with WPP to get promoted to as Chief of NYCOA was a helluva lot more important than some "cripple" with MS; d) that Spitzer was a helluva networker and string puller; e) that behind the sense of righteousness here is the premise that "judges should get paid more" so why should we "make whole" a disabled victim of discrimination, e) so what if a disabled person is referred to as a "cripple".  (The "Cripple" remark would take on much more serious implications if it were recognized for what it is, the disability equivilent of calling an African American a "nxxxxx".  I hate to use that example because it is onerous to me, but judges simply do not get disability discrimination.  Or they pretend not to.   I testified to the emotional impact all of this had on me, so there was no excuse for Lippman's disregarding ALL of the FACTS that favored the litigant, facts that the jury took very seriously.

It's a fairly widely known fact that judges are elitists especially at the appellate level.   They consider themselves smarter than "lay people" even when they have litigants who are just as educated and successful in their own chosen careers as they are. And they think no one but other judges, and a few pro employer attorneys,  can understand the arcane language of their "rulings".  Most of the time this is intentional.   If there is a secret society with secret rules then there must be a secret code to communicate that by design is unintelligible.   Judges today think they are also ABOVE THE LAW.   The whole premise of the Rule of Law is something they feel contemptuous about.   They think that their job is to "interpret" the law so that whatever ingoing operative bias is will be supported.  If they had to adhere to the Rule of Law, they would not be tossing out bona fide jury verdicts so they can re-write the laws to their view of the world.   These are ACTIVIST judges, the very kind that Supreme Court Judge Roberts despises.   And when you have a weak, corrupt JCC Director like Tembeckjian who knows what's going on but does not have the balls to challenge ANY appellate jurists, or worse, benefits from the corruption by getting them to come on his Cable Show, the Judiciary and New York State BOTH have a very serious problem. The problem is that the "sytems of checks and balances" is broken and corruption is not only not disciplined, it is encouraged.We just saw TWO JURISTS WHO VIOLATED SEVERAL JCC CODES OF CONDUCT GET PROMOTED INSTEAD OF REMOVED FROM OFFICE.  Other judges see this kind of behavior is rewarded and they think (llike Judge Friedman) "that's the fast track to promotion". 

Now, back to the Code.   I would agree that most litigants do not understand the majority of judicial decisions.  Unfortunately for Judge Lippman, I am not one of them.   Over the last 13 years I have become an expert in discrimination and appellate law, and have retained very senior legal counsel (after Lebowtiz who was a narcisstic lightweight, and whose failure to admit a certain document into evidence gave Lippman an opening to challenge the jury verdict, not a bona fide opening but it was a tidbit to anchor his flimsy argument upon).    Legally. Lippman was completely in the wrong:   a) Bates/WPP had AGREED to the jury instructions or the "law of the case", so there was no bona fide reason to contest the fight after it had been lost (and after they had refused to settle for 13 years); b) the whole "fatality" of the evidence that Lebowitz failed to admit (but proffer) was ridiculous.   Bates never proved it was more "cost effective" to fire me and hire new younger non disabled execs to replace me. (That's the oldest trick in the discrimination book). And even if Bates had proven that it was more cost effective, they still would not have prevailed.  This brings us to the macro legal argument that we made to the New York Court of Appeals. 

A discrimination plaintiff has the burden of proffering a "prima facie" case of discrimination.
   We met that burden and there is no dispute about that.

The employer accused of discrimination has the right to rebut that allegation with a "legitimate reason"
.  (Litigants refer to this as the Pretext).   Under McDonnell Douglas, the overarching Supreme Court decision, the employer only has to meet the burden of production, not proof (which was extremely problematic and flawed law).   So the employer could come back and say:
We fired her because she had blue eyes.    If the plaintiff had blue eyes, under the Lippman school of law, the employer has met their burden and disposed of any allegations of discrimination, no matter how much evidence exists that the employer was motivated by discrimiation.

Now, it's at this juncture where we argued to NYCOA that there is a third level of proof that must be met.  

The plaintiff has the opportunity and right to prove that while the "legimate reason" may be true (often it is proved false and some people erroneously think that if the reason is false that the allegations of discrimination must be true, I disagree), the employer could still be motivated by discrimination.

So to give you an example:   An employer could prove it had "financial problems", but still have used that "legitimate reason"
as the pretext for discrimination.   Most discrimination, especiallly wrongful terminations, do not occur during periods when the employer could be outted.   Employers often wait for RIFFS and Mergers to get rid of older workers, disabled workers, minorities etc.   This is how its done.   Either Lippman is an idiot or he pretended he did not know this.  Either way, in our appellate briefs we used the "blue eyes" example to illustrate just how idiodic the Lippman decision was.   If Bates had fired because because I had blue eyes, and it was proven that I had blue eyes, then no amount of evidence of discrimination or motives of discrimination would
convict an employer.   This is simply preposterous.  But it is exactly what Lippman wrote in his decision.

Most judges assume the corporate attorneys legal arguments are correct.   Many busy courts, even ones not motivated by political reasons like Lippman, rely upon and often quote verbatim from Defense counsel briefs.  This is a dangerous highly prejducial practice but it is done all the time and is accepted among the Judiciary.   Lippman lliterally adopted Greg Homer's
arguments.  He not only made no attempt at fact checking, and assumed Homer's facts would at least hold up under scrutiny,
and liberally quoted verbatim from Homer's brief.   He also adopted Homer;s legal arguments and even accepted that silly Stephenson case as a precedent that superceded the Supreme Court!

When this occurred, I realized that WPP had gotten to Lippman somehow and a deal had been created AGAIN.   I would later be proven correct in this when Lippman would be promoted during the same time period to Chief of the NYCOA.   So now we have TWO judges getting promoted by throwing my case.   But that was not the end of it.

3. Top Court Blinks in "First Dept" WPP Discrimination Power Play:   My third document to you is a copy of a press release that I wrote and had run on Reuters, AP etc.   But basically it testifies to the third level of this power play-cover up.   That was when Judge Kaye looked the other way when she received my NYCOA appeal (see appended).   Now lawyers will tell you that only around 5% of cases are heard on appeal at the NYCOA level and that they must either address "conflict in lower court rulings on important issues of law" or "extraordinary circumstances".   As my Brief to NYCOA attests to, I met both.  

First, as my NYCOA brief articulates, the lower courts in New York have been issuing conflicting decisions on this important area of law: the burden of proof for proving pretext in Discrimination cases.    Courts outside of New York, in Michigan, California, and even Conn, have aligned around the "real reason" legal standard.   I drafted a legal argument and proved this in my appliction to NYCOA.     I also talked about how discrimination was increasing, the laws werent' being enforced, and how corporate america was encouraged by the Lippman decision and that there would be more "creative" law in the future.

Second. and probably most important, I argued that the precedent that would be set by allowing the Lippman decision to stand would be disastrous for all persons in protected classes.   I was so disturbed by the prospect of others having to go through the same ordeal that I did.   I could not imagine the Courts turning their backs on all the civil rights advances of the last 30 years.
But turn they would.

Lastly, I described my own personal "extraodinary" circumstances were as a woman with MS who had been through a hellish 13 years of litigation that literally consumed my life.   Justice delayed is justice denied.   In my case, the consequences would be far more fatal.  Time and again I asked myself:  What kind of people turn their back on a woman who has a serious medical condition to advance their careers?  But I had underestimated the avarice and power hungriness of my adversary.   These were men right out of Michael Clayton.  Dangerous men.   Men who would sell their souls to advance their position.   And all they needed was one corrupt woman to help them.

So what did NYCOA do with my petition to address the most important legal case in decades?  A case that would determine whether people in protected classes would maintain or lose their rights to equality in the workplace?

The week my case came up for hearing, they decided to hear the Bianca Jagger eviction case.   Judge Kaye had made an important decision.  She decided to help her friend Judge Lippman out of a jam, and throw the rights of people in protected classes the wolves by simply doing NOTHING. 

She betrayed everything she alllegedly did in her career.   But there was a reason.....

3.. Paterson Picks Chief Judge Nominee:  And future Chief of the Judicial Nomination Commission.

What goes around comes around.   In January 2009, the Governr raved about Judge Lippman in an article about his nomination "I'm THRILLED to choose Judge Lippman as our next Chief Judge", Governor Patterson said.   Senator Sampson was not so thrilled.  He criticized the selection process.  Yet Judge Kaye, outgoing Chair, openly supported Lippman.   Why?
She had demonstrated such a patten of conflict aversion.   Why pitch Lippman?

It would soon become apparent.  One hand washes another in Albany.

Judge Kaye would be nominated by Judge Lippman to chair the Commission on Judicial Nomination.   Now the judiciary had completel control of the process.   Kaye would decide which judges would get nominated, with help from corporate law firms who have historically controlled this process.   Lippman would have ultimate control over all legal policy and standards in New York State.   And Tembeckjian would sit back and do what he does best: NOTHING.  No complaints no matter how egregious, no evidence no matter how compelling, would cause Mr. T to honor the duties he was appointed to carry out.   He would simply do what Kaye did: LOOK THE OTHER WAY.

4. END Condemns Patterson appointment of Lippman as Chief of NYCOA
:   In February 2009, I drafted a press release about the Lippman appointment.  I planned to release it.  However, I got a call from Samspon's office asking me to hold up.   This began a dialogue with Time Spotts that concluded with the testimony at the hearing.   I think the Sampson office felt guilty about the entire matter.  Sampson went against his instinct and allowed Lippman's appt to go forward.  He intuivitively knew something was wrong.  But Patterson was pressuring him.  I kept my word and did not release the PR statement.  I regret that now.   I should have outted Lippman.

I did send a letter to Patterson's offices in Albany and Brooklyn petitioning vehemently against Lippman.   I made sure that the letter was received by the decision makers.  Eventually it got to Spotts.

When I heard Kaye had been appointed as the JNC head, I knew the fix was in.   Both Sampson and myself made the same mistake.  We did not llisten to our instincts and we gave people the benefit of the doubt that had consisently proven to be evil,exploitative people.

5. Kathryn Jordan v. Bates Advertising, NYCOA Motion.   Self Explanatory.

6. September 22,2008:  letter to Kaye making it clear (in response to DBR letter) that we were "raising a new legal issue" in our  brief to NYCOA.   There were no "new" legal issues.  Just very important old ones that had not been resolved under Kaye's regime.

7.  Jordan objection to Patterson about Lippman appt on February 10th, 2009, the day before he was officially appointed.
I spent that day frantically calling everyone.   I told anyone who would speak to me that we needed to postpone this critcal decision but the fix was in.

9. Complaints to JCC:  This is a small smattering of complaints against Judge Acosta and Lippman (and Friedman, who covered up the malpractice case against Lebowitz, so Acosta would not have any "evidence leaks" that might harm him).  

10.  Letter from Jean Savnauyu:  I received dozens of form letters just like this.  I responded with questions and complaints about their "investigative" process.  But they were met with silence or oblique denials.   What a joke.



CJA Site Search Engine Search CJA

CJA Homepage  •  Latest News  •  Join Us  •  Site Search