OGI Applicants v. Law School Classrooms
74 U.Va 5 (2021)
Kulkarni, S. delivered the opinion of the Court.
Today’s case concerns an intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claim by a large number of 2L students. Specifically, they allege that the Law School has harmed them by naming classrooms and hallways after the firms that have rejected them during the OGI process. Although I am sure that there are 3Ls who have similar concerns, their claims were dismissed because they are no longer in the zone of danger.[1] No 1L has dared join this case, for they know that we will dismiss such claims with extreme prejudice.
Background
First, some context. Within the Law School, there are a number of hallways named after alumni.[2] However, there is one specific hallway named after a firm: Hunton Andrews Kurth. Similarly, there are a number of classrooms and seminar rooms named after alumni with others named after firms like King & Spalding or Bradley Arant Boult Cummings.[3] Some of these classrooms named after firms are the most commonly used for mid-size elective classes. This is all without mentioning the vaunted McGuireWoods Corner.[4] Since 2Ls still tend to show up to their classes, and take only electives, they are the students who actually end up in these classrooms the most. Most lockers are either near one of these classrooms or close enough to the sign for the Hunton Hallway. It is clear that these students are within the zone of danger.[5]
Analysis
These 2Ls have used this proximity to the offending signs and classroom labels to bring this claim. They go on to assert that they had to endure a month-long (or more) process known as On Grounds Interviews (OGI), after months of networking, and are now triggered simply by hearing these firm names. Furthermore, they argue, after all that hard work, all they got was a series of automated rejection emails from these firms or worse—no word back at all. Is it any wonder then, they claim, that they are triggered every time they see those signs? This Court, at least those of us with hearts,[6] certainly feel sympathy for these students. It was a stressful time to be going through OGI and it is no wonder that they feel triggered every time they see the names of their alleged tormentors.
A problem arises, however, when these students make too broad a claim. The students who are suing the Law School, in its capacity of operating these classrooms, allege that all of these firm names have caused them harm. They do not provide any proof that they have applied to all of the named firms. Rejections are hard and are cause for relief, but harm to one student is not, in fact, harm to all in such cases. Without a majority of claimants showing that these specific firms have caused them harm, there cannot be an indiscriminate removal of their names from Law School classrooms.
Furthermore, there has to be a balancing of the equities. The Law School alleges that these firms give a lot of money to the school and hire many of our students. Let’s work through this backwards. First of all, the firms that hire many UVA students are in fact good partners. They are upholding their side of the bargain: get marketing, hire students. These firm names cannot be removed as a result of today’s claims. The money given, however, is not an excuse. These firms likely get a tax break from their donations; thus, they get their benefit already. The added marketing bonus from their names on classrooms cannot be applied simply for the money.
Conclusion and Order
These 2Ls have suffered real harm. They are constantly faced by the names of the firms that have hurt them so deeply. But this Court cannot order an indiscriminate removal of firm names from Law School classrooms. Rather, we focus on the argument made by the Law School. These firms get marketing to students based on the idea that they will hire some of those students. Thus, it is fair to penalize the firms that have broken that contract.[7] The firms that did not hire any students from this august Law School hereby lose their privileges to have their names on classrooms, hallways, and corners. Further, upon future such showings of lack of hiring, the Court will order the same for other firms. While we are sympathetic to other, individual claims, those students will simply have to fight through their distress as students from past years have done.
Bninski, J., concurring in the judgment.
While I write to concur with the outcome reached by my esteemed colleagues, my holding is a more narrow one. I do not take issue with a law firm’s right to reject vast fields of hopeful candidates. That is the nature of the business, and firms are legally free to determine their preferred candidates so long as they avoid practices or criteria which discriminate against individuals based on protected characteristics, or which, while neutral on their face, result in a disparate impact on minority groups.[8] Within that broad liberty, law firms can indulge in caprice. One can even argue, as do appellees in this case, that the firms should be free to constantly remind law students that, while they may enter the firm’s eponymous halls, classroom, foyers, etc., the halls of the firms themselves will remain zealously guarded. This nation does, after all, prioritize liberty of expression.
The behavior that I would censure lies at the heart of this Court’s jurisdiction: the profoundly petty. To wit, I take issue with firms solely for sending rejection emails that, rather than owning up to their own decision-making process, include weak verbiage claiming that they “are unable”[9] to continue a candidate’s journey through interviewing toward employment “at this time.”[10] Further insult is added by the inclusion of statements that the decision “does not reflect”[11] upon the candidate. Were this the matter before the Court today, I would enjoin firms to make a “short and plain”[12] statement that the candidate is not entitled to employment. Such a statement might be, “We interviewed you. We decided not to hire you.”
In the absence of an opportunity to enjoin firms from sending disingenuous emails, I will take petty revenge by joining in this opinion to censure their product placement in this school.
Tonseth, C.J., dissenting like I’m Clarence Thomas.
Blatant hypocrisy. I apparently forgot to include a reason in my dissent last week, again concerning an opinion issued by Associate Justice Kulkarni, for why I always disagree with his legal analysis, in that he’s just plain damn wrong sometimes.[13] In appointing members to this Court, I forgot that some 2Ls want a glass of milk after you give them a cookie. You see, the apparent victorious party, to which Justice Kulkarni is a party to,[14] both wants a job with these respective firms that he decries and uses his attendance at the prestigious University that he attends to get his foot in the door.
While I’m not truly appalled at the lack of legal analysis and aforethought by Justice Kulkarni, his voodoo magic of pulling Justice Bninski to the dark side hurts deeply. Citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is prescient,[15] but in this Court, “we do what we want.”[16] Ergo, we cite our own precedent that is unmoored from the shackling laws made by an unrepresentative body that is the U.S. Congress. If they can actively skirt the rules and precedent,[17]so can I. I just wish J. Bninski would do the same.
I need not say J. Kulkarni is soft, but there’s no other real way to describe his generation. The lack of true textual analysis, wanting his cake and wanting to eat it too, all the while decrying the “process”, is enough for me to discard this opinion to the trash heap of history, just like Texas’ independence.
Birch, J., dissenting.
Much like many dissents, my opinion was not asked for, expected, or appreciated by my colleagues when received, but it will be published. My dissent is based solely on one phrase used by my junior colleague on the bench, Justice Kulkarni: "Rejections are hard and are cause for relief." What the Justice does not take into account in coming to this conclusion is the benefits of certain rejections. While I recognize having an offer from a firm is a benefit, expecting offers from every firm is ludacris. I know this can be a shock to many 2Ls, but rejection is a part of life and none of you are perfect. The relationship between firms that will pay to put their name on Law School property and firms that will actively laugh at your weekend plans is one-to-one. Rejections from those firms should not always be met with sorrow or discouragement, but if a single other offer meets your needs then a celebration may be in order. Work-life balance may be attainable in four years instead of retirement!
The legal industry itself is a Zone of Danger, and any attempts to temper that are met with opinions just like that of our Chief Justice. As a part of the legal industrial complex, the Law School is just playing its part with sponsorships to remind students that had never received a grade below an A- in undergraduate that they have willingly walked into hell. This lawsuit is much like suing a haunted house for scaring you when you paid for a ticket to get scared.
I must separately give recognition and credit to the reasoning displayed by my colleague Justice Bninski. While her conclusion in this matter before us comes out wholly twisted by self-interest and personal whim, her wish to enjoin firms' weak communications in the future has my foundational support.
---
omk6cg@virginia.edu
amb6ag@virginia.edu
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
sfb9yu@virginia.edu
[1] Sorry Professor White, this phrase is all I remember about IIED claims. Luckily this is a made-up court and I don’t have to remember all of the precedent.
[2] This court appreciates the school removing the Withers name from the hall, perhaps removing it from the classroom labels should be expedited.
[3] I think the fact that I remembered the full name without looking it up deserves kudos.
[4] Ten points to any reader who finds this sign, it is hidden well.
[5] I’m definitely not using this phrase correctly.
[6] Everyone except my venerated colleague the Chief Justice.
[7] Look Rip! I paid enough attention in your class to know that breaking a contract is bad.
[8] See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in case you need legal reasons not to be racist or sexist.
[9] If they wanted to, they could. They are only “unable” to want to.
[10] There is literally no reason to say this.
[11] While the firm’s need for summer associates must also play a role in the number of offers extended, it strikes this justice as absurd that hiring decisions would not reflect on the candidates who were interviewed. Their credentials and self-presentation are a substantial portion of the data that a potential employer has to work with. Why pretend otherwise?
[12] See Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which applies here not procedurally but in its general vibe.
[13] Law Students v. Bar Review 74 U.Va 4 (2021), (Tonseth C.J., dissenting).
[14] Conflict of interest much????
[15] TBH, I don’t know what this means, but Justice Thomas always uses big words and nobody really reads the 4th dissent in a case that you’re assigned in ConLaw, so I am surprised if you even got this far.
[16] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers 369 U.Va 96 (2019).
[17] See generally, the failed country that is Texas.