A federal judge in Chicago has ruled that Foley & Lardner must face a discrimination lawsuit brought by a Muslim attorney who claims the firm withdrew her job offer because of her pro-Palestinian speech and background. The decision allows the case to proceed to trial, marking a significant development in a growing number of legal disputes involving political expression, religion, and
workplace discrimination in the U.S. legal profession.
U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman denied Foley & Lardner’s request for summary judgment, finding that the case presents substantial factual disputes that should be resolved by a jury. The ruling keeps alive claims brought by Jinan Chehade, a 2023 graduate of Georgetown University Law Center, who was scheduled to begin working as an associate in the firm’s Chicago office in October 2023.
Job Offer Rescinded Hours Before Start Date
According to court filings, Chehade’s employment offer was withdrawn just hours before her scheduled start date. Chehade alleges that the firm rescinded the offer after reviewing her social media posts and public remarks expressing support for Palestinians and criticizing Israel’s military actions in Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks in Israel.
Chehade had also spoken at a Chicago City Council meeting on October 11, 2023, where she addressed the conflict and voiced concerns about Israel’s actions in Gaza. The lawsuit claims that these public statements triggered an internal investigation by the firm and ultimately led to the decision to revoke her employment.
Allegations of Religious and Ethnic Discrimination
In her complaint, Chehade alleges that Foley & Lardner discriminated against her based on her religion and ethnicity. She claims the firm relied on harmful stereotypes portraying Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians as inherently violent or hostile toward Jewish people.
The lawsuit further alleges that the firm improperly associated her political views with support for terrorism. Chehade has denied supporting violence and argues that her speech was protected political expression.
Judge Coleman noted that Chehade presented evidence suggesting she may have been treated differently from non-Muslim and non-Arab attorneys who expressed controversial political views. The judge concluded that these disparities raise questions about whether the firm’s stated reasons for rescinding the offer were legitimate or a pretext for discrimination.
Scrutiny of Personal Background
Chehade also claims she was questioned by senior partners about her personal and religious background. According to court records, she was asked about her past involvement with Students for Justice in Palestine, a pro-Palestinian advocacy group, as well as her father’s work at a local mosque.
The lawsuit argues that these inquiries reflect discriminatory intent and demonstrate that the firm focused on her identity rather than her professional qualifications. Chehade contends that such questioning would not have occurred if she were not Muslim or of Arab descent.
Firm Cites “Core Values” in Defense
Foley & Lardner has defended its decision by asserting that Chehade’s conduct conflicted with the firm’s core values. The firm told the court that partners believed her statements could be interpreted as condoning violence related to the Israel-Hamas conflict.
According to court filings, the firm said its leadership had the impression that Chehade’s remarks and social media posts could be seen as supportive of Hamas, although Chehade has denied any such intent.
Judge Coleman ruled that it is up to a jury to determine whether the firm’s stated rationale was sincere or whether it was used as a pretext to justify discriminatory treatment. The court emphasized that credibility determinations and motive are issues best resolved at trial.
Comparisons to Other Attorneys’ Conduct
The judge also pointed to evidence suggesting that other attorneys at Foley & Lardner may have made inflammatory or
controversial statements about the conflict without facing similar consequences.
Chehade’s attorneys argued that some firm lawyers expressed views that were critical of Palestinians or supportive of Israel in strong terms but were not disciplined or investigated. If proven, such differences in treatment could support an inference of discrimination, the court said.
Broader Impact on Legal Hiring and Free Expression
The case comes amid heightened tensions within
U.S. law schools and law firms following the Israel-Hamas war. In recent years, several major law firms have withdrawn job offers from students and lawyers who publicly expressed pro-Palestinian views or held leadership roles in organizations that criticized Israel.
These actions have sparked debate within the legal community over free speech, political expression, and the limits of employer discretion in evaluating off-duty conduct. Critics argue that rescinding offers based on political viewpoints may chill speech and disproportionately affect Muslim and Arab candidates.
Supporters of firm actions, meanwhile, argue that
law firms have a responsibility to maintain workplace standards and protect clients and employees from speech that could be perceived as endorsing violence or hate.
What Happens Next
With summary judgment denied, the case is expected to move forward toward trial unless the parties reach a settlement. A jury will be tasked with determining whether Foley & Lardner engaged in unlawful discrimination and whether the firm’s explanation for rescinding the offer was genuine.
The case is titled
Jinan Chehade v. Foley & Lardner and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
The outcome could have significant implications for how law firms handle politically sensitive speech by employees and job candidates, particularly in matters involving religion, ethnicity, and international conflicts..
Stay ahead in a competitive legal market and explore exclusive opportunities you will not find anywhere else.
Visit LawCrossing today to search legal jobs, upload your resume, and take the next step in your legal career.
