The Experience of Pre-Trial Settlement in a Lesbian Employment Case

Have you ever attended a legal dispute or crossed paths with a lawsuit before it went to court? Such experiences can be deeply enriching, both professionally and personally. One such episode from my law school days stands out vividly and profoundly. During my second year, I served as a litigation assistant to Professor X, who was handling a significant employment case on behalf of a lesbian employee who had been dismissed by the city of Philadelphia in 1975.

Although the case predated my involvement in the mid-1980s, the spirit of the experience aligns closely with your question. The case had clear legal ramifications, yet the final resolution took an unexpected turn just before the trial was set to begin.

The Case Background

The employee, identified as plaintiff X, had been fired by the city and claimed that the city had violated her contract by not allowing her to return to her position within the stipulated year. The city, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff did not fulfill her obligation to request reinstatement before the expiration of the union contract period.

The Approach to Pre-Trial Discovery

Before the trial, my professor believed that the case was a losing one, primarily due to a critical scheduling discrepancy. The date of a crucial meeting was pivotal, affecting the whole outcome of the case, as it determined whether the plaintiff could legally request her job back within the contract period. The city presented extensive documentation, including minute notes and diaries of city officials, spanning from the head of playgrounds to the mayor.

The Critical Piece of Information

Just as the trial was about to commence, I received a crucial piece of information from the plaintiff herself—an acquisition of a significant detail that could alter the entire course of the case. The plaintiff mentioned that city employees above a certain level were not allowed to take vacations between Memorial Day and Labor Day in the 1970s. For these employees, summer was the period when most serious issues in the city surfaced.

Uncovering the Truth

Armed with this information, I delved back into the case files and uncovered evidence showing that the city officials had, in fact, been on vacation during the week the meeting was supposed to have taken place. This was a significant revelation as it proved that the city officials had been perjuring themselves. Within minutes, the evidence was gathered and presented to the city officials.

The Resolution and Its Implications

Night before the trial, the city management settled the case, agreeing to the plaintiff’s full demands as stipulated in her complaint. It was an exhilarating and transformative experience. This outcome not only demonstrated the power of thorough preparation and due diligence but also reinforced a lesson that carries weight beyond the practice of law: always store and consider all pieces of information that might become important at any point in the future.

The Case's Permanent Record and Legacy

Believe it or not, the case Hill v. Philadelphia has become overshadowed by a more recent legal event with the same name. A simple Google search for references to this old case yields no results specifically, perhaps because the case did not go to trial. However, it is safe to assume that there are detailed records in various LGBT historical archives and I still have the original case papers in my possession.