Editor’s Note: Malaysiakini is withholding the names of the parties involved in the suit to protect the identity of the plaintiff as requested.
A law firm and its senior partner’s statement of defence against a sexual harassment suit contained irrelevant allegations meant to detract from the actual issue, claimed a court filing.
Through a reply dated mid-December last year, a 27-year-old lawyer contended that the claims contained in the duo’s statement of defence against her suit were intended to negatively affect her credibility and the gravity of her complaints about the alleged sexual harassment.
The legal action named the 44-year-old male senior partner and the law firm as the first (D1) and second defendants (D2), respectively.
“D1’s (and D2’s) defence comprises partly of averments of fact and partly of evidence and arguments.
“D1’s (and D2’s) defence also contains various allegations not relevant to the claim set out in the SoC (suit’s statement of claim), but are designed to attack the credibility of the plaintiff (female lawyer) and/or the legitimacy or gravity of the complaints in the SoC and/or detract from the actual issues in dispute.
“The plaintiff confines her plea to the averments of material fact only and makes no admissions to such evidence, arguments and allegations set out in D1’s (and D2’s) defence save where the contrary appears,” she asserted in her reply.
On Oct 28 last year, the lawyer filed legal action over the sexual harassment she allegedly endured at the hands of the senior partner while she was at the law firm between December 2018 to December 2019.
In a statement of defence filed on Dec 2 last year, the 44-year-old senior partner denied having committed sexual harassment against the plaintiff, instead claiming, among others, that the female lawyer’s various attempts to resign then were driven by an inability to work with others at the law firm.
Through its statement of defence filed on Nov 29 last year, the law firm claimed that she never raised any complaint of sexual harassment while attached there. The firm also said she did not make use of the adequate and proper procedures within the firm to report the alleged sexual harassment.
The law firm also contended that the plaintiff, when she was called to the Bar to be enrolled as an advocate and solicitor on Feb 12, 2020, had instead “expressed her gratitude” to it for the “experience, opportunities, and guidance given to her”.
Unaware of complaint mechanism
In the latest court filing sighted by Malaysiakini, the female lawyer was referring to multiple alleged irrelevant allegations in the two defendants’ statement of defence, among them claims that an unendorsed copy of her lawsuit was spread online via WhatsApp messaging, as well as alleged circulation of “anonymous poison pen articles/emails”.
In refuting allegations that she was unable to work with others at the firm, the lawyer pointed out that her various attempts to resign between Oct 18, 2019 and Nov 30, 2019 arose from “the emotional and mental trauma she experienced from D1’s conduct and/or offensive, hostile, intimidating, humiliating, and distressing work environment at D2, including but not limited to D1’s conduct”.
She contended that she did not raise the senior partner’s alleged sexual harassment issue then due to the influence that the 44-year-old lawyer and the firm held over her when she was attached there.
She claimed that during her chambering and then short employment period with the law firm, she was unaware of the firm having any complaints and investigation system for sexual harassment and that the firm also never informed her of the existence of such mechanism.
“The plaintiff’s last physical date of employment with D2 was on Dec 13, 2019, two months before she would be called to the Malaysian Bar.
“The positions of power and the ostensible control, authority or influence in which D1 and/or any other partner of D2 had over the employment of the plaintiff or may continue to have subsequently to her leaving the employ of D2, including matters pertaining to her call to the Malaysian Bar; the absence of an environment which unequivocally denounces D1’s conduct; and the absence of an adequate and confidential, or indeed any complaints and investigation system; prevented the plaintiff from being able to raise D1’s conduct to D2 and/or its partners at the material time and/or in her notices of resignations.
“For the reasons and as set out in the SoC, the plaintiff denies the allegations that the basis for her resignations was her alleged inability to work or get along with a colleague, to fit into D1’s team and/or to manage her work,” the lawyer said. - Mkini
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.