Source:  Zuckerman v. City of New York, 9 N.Y.2d 557 (N.Y. 1980).

Since William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP pretended that the pyramid of evidence demonstrating William Morris’116 year pattern and continuing practice of discriminating against qualified African Americans was irrelevant to my claims of pre-hiring individual disparate treatment, insufficiently refuted statistical evidence showing that the company’s employment practices, policies and procedures created a glaring disparate impact against African Americans (reflected by the New York office’s “inexorable zero” in positions of Agent and Coordinator prior and during my employment) and refused to present evidence in admissible form that was exclusively in their possession (e.g. resumes of my similarly situated white/”Jewish”counterparts since they argued they were more qualified than me and I argued the reverse, my evaluations since they claimed I was the worst performing employee and I argued that many of those highly subjective evaluations were tainted with bias and did not reflect my actual work performance, etc.), then William Morris failed to meet their heightened burden of production and persuasion.

Based on the reasons mentioned above and more, the finder of fact should have either found William Morris’ arbitration agreements to be unenforceable as a matter of law and public policy,  summary judgment should have been granted in my favor on all claims, or the finder of fact should have allowed for discovery and an oral hearing to ensure due process before entering a “final”decision, esp. if the decision was made in favor of William Morris.

Since William Morris and Loeb & Loeb LLP did not want to comply with my good-faith discovery requests and opposed having an oral hearing, how could any impartial finder of fact rule in their favor under these circumstances?