Lawyer never complained of sexual harassment while at law firm: Court papers
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 female lawyer never raised any complaint of sexual harassment while at a Kuala Lumpur law firm, as alleged in a court filing.
Through its statement of defence against the 27-year-old woman’s lawsuit, the firm claimed that she never made any complaint about the purported harassment by a 44-year-old senior partner of the firm, between December 2018 and Dec 15, 2019, when she resigned from the firm.
In the court filing sighted by Malaysiakini, the firm alleged that after leaving the firm, she continued to maintain a cordial relationship with her pupil master who was a senior partner of the firm (not the same person as the other senior partner...
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 female lawyer never raised any complaint of sexual harassment while at a Kuala Lumpur law firm, as alleged in a court filing.
Through its statement of defence against the 27-year-old woman’s lawsuit, the firm claimed that she never made any complaint about the purported harassment by a 44-year-old senior partner of the firm, between December 2018 and Dec 15, 2019, when she resigned from the firm.
In the court filing sighted by Malaysiakini, the firm alleged that after leaving the firm, she continued to maintain a cordial relationship with her pupil master who was a senior partner of the firm (not the same person as the other senior partner being jointly sued with the firm by her).
The firm claimed that following her resignation, she expressed “keen interest” to remain with the firm when she allegedly learnt of a vacancy there for an associate, with the firm claiming however that it could not employ her as the vacancy had been filled.
“During her time with the firm, the plaintiff did not make any complaint concerning any of the allegations that she now makes in the statement of claim.
"Indeed, after leaving the firm, she continued to maintain a cordial relationship with her pupil master.
Purported unsafe work environment
“She also notified her pupil master of her call (to the Bar) date so that he could be present to robe her. Her call took place on Feb 12, 2020, two months after she left the firm.
“In the speech given on her behalf by counsel moving her call, the plaintiff specifically expressed her gratitude to the firm and her pupil master for the experience, opportunities, and guidance given to her.
“The firm was also never made aware by the plaintiff, during her time with the firm, of the purported unsafe, hostile and uncomfortable work environment that she was purportedly forced to endure, and as of now alleged in the statement of claim.
“The plaintiff had every opportunity to report the purported unsafe, hostile and uncomfortable work environment to the firm, her pupil master, any partner or the Human Resources Department to the firm.
“There existed adequate and proper procedures within the firm for the plaintiff to avail herself of, if she did experience an unsafe, hostile and uncomfortable work environment. The firm would have acted on her complaint had she done so,” the firm claimed.
In Malaysia during a pupil's nine-month chambering period with a law firm, the pupil would be under a senior lawyer known as the pupil master.
During the call to the Bar ceremony after the chambering period, it is traditional for the pupil master to put the black robe on the pupil to signify her entry into the legal fraternity.
Instagram stories
On Nov 24, Malaysiakini reported the female lawyer filed the sexual harassment lawsuit against the firm as well as the alleged aggressor, who is a 44-year-old senior partner of the firm.
The senior partner and the firm were named as first and second defendants in the legal action.
Meanwhile, according to the statement of defence filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court two days ago, the law firm claimed that on June 7, 2020, it discovered the plaintiff’s online Instagram stories containing insinuations of sexual harassment during her purported experience at an unidentified workplace.
The firm claimed two days later (June 9, 2020), the firm’s female partner reached out to the plaintiff to seek clarification over the Instagram posting. It claimed that the plaintiff did not respond immediately.
It alleged that later on April 12 this year, the plaintiff through her solicitor issued a letter of demand against the firm, purportedly setting out for the first time the allegations against the senior partner and the firm.
The firm claimed that when it forwarded the letter of demand to the senior partner, he categorically denied the allegations against him.
The firm alleged that it commissioned an independent external investigation committee to probe the allegations and that the plaintiff filed the suit on Aug 28 this year while the investigation was still ongoing.
It also claimed that the plaintiff was unwilling to cooperate and participate in the probe by the committee.
“For the foregoing reasons and in all circumstances of this case, the claim against the firm is contrived, frivolous, and vexatious and has been commenced for an ulterior motive. It is also mala fide (done in bad faith), malicious and an abuse of (court) process,” the firm contended.
Through the lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed she endured sexual harassment by the first defendant during her chambering period at the firm from Dec 3, 2018, to Sept 11, 2019.
She also alleged that she continued to suffer harassment by him during her employment as a paralegal with the firm after completing her pupillage on Sept 11, 2019, pending her being called to the Bar.
The plaintiff claimed that while at the firm, the lawyer had by his words and conduct repeatedly and/or deliberately “created an offensive, hostile, intimidating, humiliating and distressing work environment for the plaintiff”.
She claimed that despite her refusals, the defendant “repeatedly and persistently asked the plaintiff out for lunch and coffee to the exclusion of her colleagues and/or teammates”.
Apart from this, she accused the defendant of “repeatedly hovering over the plaintiff at her workstation and lurked behind her while she was working at her desk”, “had a habit of unnecessarily leaning in closely to the plaintiff during discussions and poking her to get her attention” as well as “repeatedly making comments about the plaintiff’s physical appearance”.
The plaintiff claimed that the lawyer also stalked her by following her in his car from a distance when she turned down his offer to give her a lift to her car after work.
She alleged that there was a lunchtime incident where she was made uncomfortable when the first defendant engaged in an inappropriate conversation about an alleged sexual act done by the king of Thailand.
She also claimed to have attempted to resign three times due to the “distressing work environment” but did not do so because the defendant threatened to “speak ill of her to her prospective employers” if she left the firm.
She accused the law firm of being responsible for the defendant's conduct as a senior partner.
On Nov 21, 2019, the Association of Women Lawyers urged law firms to work together to provide an industry-wide response against workplace bullying and sexual harassment.
Last year, the association as well as a group of young lawyers urged the Bar Council to step up the fight against sexual harassment within the legal fraternity.
On March 13, the Malaysian Bar reiterated its commitment to addressing allegations of sexual harassment within the legal profession by strengthening its internal complaints mechanisms.
/file/publisher-c1a3f893382d2b2f8a9aa22a654d9c97/2021/03/7d79ee0a5c0db54b2681c63731114402.jpg)
Report this comment
Are you sure you want to delete this comment?
This action cannot be undone.