Stropnicky v. Nathanson

19 M.D.L.R. 39 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Stropnicky (P), is a white male. Nathanson (D), practices law for a profit as part of a partnership, Nathanson, Wessler & Onerheim. D solicits business by advertising in the white and yellow pages, local newspapers and by displaying a sign outside her office. D does not advertise exclusively to women. D is also listed with the following referral services: Essex Probate Court guardian ad litem; Womens' Resource Center of Greater Lawrence; National Center for Women in Family. P was in the process of executing a divorce settlement agreement with his wife of eighteen years. At the time of their divorce, P was earning one-tenth of his wife's salary. The lawyer/mediator who drafted the settlement agreement advised P to have the agreement reviewed by a private attorney. He provided P with a list of attorneys and told him that D dealt aggressively with issues of concern to wives in divorce matters. P phoned D's office seeking to her to review his draft separation agreement. D's secretary informed him that D did not represent men in divorce proceedings. Complainant insisted on speaking with D and demanded that she return his call. D called and explained that she would not review the separation agreement because she only represented women in divorce proceedings. She maintained this position even after learning the circumstances surrounding his divorce were those traditionally associated with women in divorce proceedings. P sent D a letter stating that her 'women only' divorce practice was discriminatory. On July 24, 1991 D filed a discrimination complaint with the Commission. In response to his letter, D wrote P a letter, dated July 25, 1991, apologizing for offending him and offering to review his settlement agreement. P declined. P executed the divorce settlement agreement without the benefit of counsel. P testified that D's gender-based policy made him feel angry, humiliated, and defeated. He despaired of being unable to find an attorney who understood his special circumstances. D testified that she represented only women in divorce cases because she sought to devote her expertise to eliminating gender bias in the court system. The Commission held that D’s refusal to represent P solely due to gender was unlawful discrimination.