Update; New Claims in Clayton Utz v Michael “Trench” Mitchell Saga

Short of an earthquake shredding razing its offices, things could probably not get much worse for Clayton Utz right now.

A few weeks ago we heard the scandalous details of the defections of over a dozen of the firm’s most respected, most employable partners to A&O. Then yesterday we reported that Clayton Utz sacked in excess of 30% of the firm’s Melbourne grads in an episode of corporate abUtz.

And now this, thanks to a sexist lighthearted Clutz spy:

You ladies are a little slow to the punch, or are there too many Clutzers working at your site. A new decision’s been released in Mitchell v. Clayton Utz.

The decision widens the scope of the claims against Clayton Utz at the same time that it also makes an important point about sexual harassment law. In October, the ADT refused Mitchell leave to pursue complaint of sexual harassment for allegations that he was called Trench because the Tribunal found that “Trench”  did not constitute sexual conduct.  The Tribunal has now corrected the decision.  If the word “Trench” is used alone (as some of Mitchell’s allegations claimed), it is still not sexual. However, if, as some of the allegations claim, Trench is used in connection with other conduct of a sexual nature, such as jokes that “articulated the association Trenchcoats with deviant sexual behavior”   then in those instances the nickname “Trench” does constitute conduct of a sexual nature.  Mitchell was given leave to pursue these latter allegations, along with  his other sexual harassment, disability discrimination and victimization complaints that were already granted leave.

For those who are unfamliar with the saga that is “Trench”, let us refresh your memory with some extracts from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Tribunal decision to permit ex-Clutz lawer Michael Mitchell to pursue claims against his former firm:

Mr Mitchell alleges that Mr Williams, Mr Taylor, Ms Goumenis, Ms Best and Mr Robinson, all employees of Clayton Utz, sexually harassed him. With respect to Mr Williams, it is alleged that:

…He says they were making jokes about him ‘articulating the association between trench coats and deviant and illegal sexual behaviour and referring to him as a ‘flasher’ and as ‘trench’.

[it is alleged that]… On one occasion, Mr Williams ‘explained to the applicant how solicitors could take paralegals home for sex’.[emphasis added].

[it is alleged] One Friday evening Mr Taylor went into Mr Mitchell’s office, took his coat, put it on and ran up and down the hallway calling out ‘trench, trench, trench’. He then went into the office of Mr Ho and continued to make fun of Mr Mitchell. Mr Taylor agrees that he put Mr Mitchell’s coat on and walked several metres down the hall, saying ‘trench-coat’ several times in a sing-song voice.

…With respect to Ms Goumenis, Mr Mitchell alleges that she referred to Mr Mitchell as ‘trench’ as a way of ‘getting his attention’

Mr Mitchell says that Mr Robinson is a partner of Clayton Utz and that he was aware that he was being called ‘trench’ and did nothing to stop the conduct… According to Mr Mitchell, Mr Robinson derived ‘maximum enjoyment’ out of the [Trench] comments.

Conclusion. Leave is granted for the complaints of sexual harassment against Mr Williams and Mr Taylor personally and against Clayton Utz as their employer…

And who would have thought that, in the immediate aftermath of this remarkable saga, the Firm Spy would come into the possession of some photos, rumoured to be of alleged “Trench” harasser Jaime Taylor, cross-dressing with a blow-up sex doll?

Do you have faith in our justice system? How about the legal justice system?

Send the Firm Spy your news and views!