14 DAY TRIAL // Microsoft’s lawyers have been criticized for becoming too aggressive and looking for loopholes not to comply with a judge order that required the company to share documents as part of a gender discrimination case.
Gender bias cases aren’t something new for Microsoft, and just like expected, a company the size of the software giant would always attempt to take advantage of loopholes and use all possible ways to win lawsuits, even if this involves doing things that aren’t entirely in line with what the judge says.
This is what happened in a case started against Microsoft earlier this year when three company employees complained that the firm discriminated women and offered promotions to male colleagues much faster, even though they weren’t necessarily qualified for the job.
With Microsoft denying allegations, it turned to Seattle-based law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, whose attorneys became too aggressive in the case, according to U.S. District Judge James Robart.
“Microsoft’s lawyers do not speak English”
The Seattle Times reports that Microsoft was ordered to share internal documents relevant to the case and dated from January 2010, but instead, Redmond’s legal team only provided access to documents with dates beginning in September 2012. Microsoft’s attorneys claimed these documents were relevant to the people involved in the case.
The judge, however, explained in a September 7 hearing that Microsoft is trying to use all kinds of loopholes in the original order and is looking by all means to push back a decision and set up new appearances in court as often as possible.
“I am sincere in my concern over the frequency with which Microsoft has placed this court in having to go back and remedy situations which appear to me to be the result of over-aggressive lawyers,” the judge was quoted as saying by the firm. “It is clear that I do not speak Orrick,” Robart added. “It is also clear to me, at this point, that the Orrick firm doesn’t speak English.”
Microsoft, on the other hand, claimed it didn’t do anything wrong, and it was only acting in good faith. The firm says it’s now willing to cooperate with plaintiffs to share the necessary info and is also looking to “reach a reasonable resolution” for the remaining documents.