Judge Refuses to Step Aside in Heated Panasonic Bias Case

February 10, 2015

FEBRUARY 7, 2015

BY HUGH R. MORLEY

STAFF WRITER

THE RECORD

*Panasonic alleges unfairness in female executives’ lawsuit

An Essex County judge refused to bow to accusations by Panasonic Corporation of North America on Friday that she had showed bias in the lawsuit filed by three female African-American executives who accuse the company of discrimination.

Judge Christine Farrington, sitting in Newark, rejected a motion by Panasonic to remove herself from the case, after attorneys for the Newark-based company, the U.S.-arm of the electronics giant, spent 90 minutes detailing a lengthy list of grievances.

Among Farrington’s actions that Panasonic cited as unfair was an October ruling in which she ordered Panasonic’s attorneys to pay a sanction of $94,105 for violating court rules of “professional conduct.” The judge issued the order after Panasonic failed to hand over to the defense – allegedly for weeks — confidential documents concerning one of the executives, Glorina Williams Cruz, that were inadvertently given to company attorneys.

The attempt to remove Farrington was the latest episode in an increasingly bitter and confrontational case, which was filed by the executives – Cruz, Sandra Karriem and Marilyn “Penny” Joseph – in July 2013.

Before making her ruling Friday, Farrington called the case “an extremely contentious one.”

“The parties generally have been unable to agree on mundane issues,” she observed, and added that there had been a notable lack of “civility and courtesy between counsel.”

Panasonic to appeal

Farrington, in her ruling, said that whatever merit existed in Panasonic’s arguments, it did not rise to the level required by the law to require her to recuse herself.

Panasonic attorney Michael Griffinger of Newark, whose firm was not the one sanctioned by Farrington, immediately told the judge his client would appeal the decision.

The company released a statement saying: “Judges don’t often rule against themselves. We always anticipated that this would be decided on appeal.”

The three executives allege that for years they were victims of discrimination that stunted their careers and depressed their earning ability. Joseph and Karriem continue to work at Panasonic; Cruz left in October. Their amended complaint contends that Cruz was fired in part “in retaliation for her complaints of discrimination.”

Panasonic, in court papers seeking Farrington’s removal, argued that the judge “prejudged motions prior to receiving them and has applied a tortured reading of” legal precedent in favor of the executives.

“The objective facts inevitably lead to the conclusion that the court is no longer impartial and that its appearance of impartiality has been irretrievably lost,” the papers said.

Griffinger argued in court that Farrington’s sanction against Panasonic’s law firm, Nukk-Freeman & Cerra of Chatham, was wrong because the documents the company supposedly held on to improperly, instead of returning them to the plaintiff’s attorneys, were not protected by attorney-client privilege as the three executives argued. That’s because the documents belonged to Panasonic, and Cruz, in sending them through the Panasonic email system, “had no reasonable expectation of privacy,” Griffinger said.

“Without that expectation of privacy, there can be no privilege,” he said.

Neil Mullin, an attorney for the three executives, argued that “dissatisfaction” with a court ruling did not meet the court standard for a judge to step aside. Instead, there would have to be “deep-seated favoritism, or antagonism,” which was not present in this case, he said.

Email: morley@northjersey.com