Jinan Chehade, an aspiring associate at Foley & Lardner, moved to Chicago to start her new position, only for her offer to be rescinded due to her public statements regarding the situation in Gaza. Following her comments at a rally, where she both condemned the October 7 Hamas attacks and criticized Israeli government policies, Foley & Lardner interrogated her about her past remarks and affiliations. The firm subsequently revoked her job offer just a day before her anticipated start date. In response, Chehade pursued legal action against Foley on multiple grounds, including the firm’s breach of its employment agreement.
Read more on Above the Law.
Recently, the court dismissed Chehade’s claim for promissory estoppel without prejudice, but allowed her the opportunity to amend specific allegations related to it. Notably, her civil rights claims remain under consideration.
Details on the court’s decision can be found here.
The legal profession has seen a series of similar incidents in the wake of the October 7 attacks, where individuals faced employment consequences for their public discourse. For example, another aspiring associate at Winston was dismissed for describing the attacks as “necessary,” while Davis Polk rescinded offers to students for their affiliations with groups criticizing Israeli policies, even when those criticisms were accompanied by denunciations of Hamas attacks.
Further information on Davis Polk’s actions highlights the ongoing tensions in legal recruiting.
These firm actions are legally permissible due to their status as at-will employers. Consequently, they are not legally obligated to maintain employment for individuals whose expressed views conflict with their policies. This position was clearly stated by Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman in her remarks on Chehade’s case, emphasizing the absence of an unambiguous commitment from Foley to tolerate support-related expressions that might misalign with their core values.
While Chehade’s promissory estoppel claim did not succeed, her contention that the firm’s decisions were influenced by her racial and religious identity remains pertinent. Chehade claims that her father’s job at a mosque was a focal point during firm inquiries, suggesting potential biases beyond professional discourse.
Chehade has been granted a 21-day window to potentially reframe her promissory estoppel argument. Meanwhile, her civil rights allegations will continue in court, shedding light on the complex intersections of free speech, employment, and identity in the legal sector.