Judge denies L.L. Bean trial request Lawyers argued juror should have revealed interest in women’s political issues

PORTLAND – A federal judge has rejected L.L. Bean’s argument that a juror in a sex discrimination suit should have disclosed a “one-sided interest” in women’s legal rights.

Allison Morrill was on the jury that awarded $215,000 to a Wales woman in June. Eileen Crowley sued L.L. Bean for failing to protect her from continual sexual harassment by a co-worker.

Lawyers for the Freeport-based retailer had asked U.S. District Judge Gene Carter for a new trial. They argued that Morrill, a public health researcher and former lawyer from Portland, failed to disclose information that could have led to her disqualification.

Morrill is a research scientist at New England Research Institutes, a private company in Watertown, Mass. L.L. Bean noted in its motion that Morrill works in the Institute for Women’s Health Research and is interested in domestic violence, HIV prevention for women and custody issues for children of battered women.

Morrill also practiced family law and had represented a female client in a sex discrimination case in federal court.

“Morrill’s undisclosed professional experiences demonstrate an exclusive interest in women’s legal rights, and an apparent corresponding disinterest in or antipathy to the legal rights of men and employers, respectively, in divorce and sex discrimination claims,” L.L. Bean’s lawyers said in their motion.

In his decision issued Thursday, Carter said he disagreed with L.L. Bean’s argument that Morrill’s professional interests show she cannot make fair decisions when a woman is involved.

“The suggestion that an interest in women’s issues naturally correlates to a dislike for men and employers is absurd,” Carter wrote.

But Peter J. Brann, a lawyer for L.L. Bean, said Friday that Carter overlooked the fact that Morrill contacted Crowley’s lawyer after the trial because of a research interest. It was only then that he learned Morrill had represented a woman in a discrimination case, Brann said.

Brann said that as a former lawyer, Morrill should have known to speak up about her experience as a plaintiff’s lawyer in a sex discrimination suit. Brann said Friday that part of his concern was that other jurors could have given Morrill’s opinion greater weight because of her background in that area of the law.

Morrill said she was surprised these issues came up after the trial, saying she disclosed her past as a lawyer on the form required of prospective jurors. She also praised Carter’s decision, saying she believes her training makes her especially capable of examining facts before making a decision.

“I think he’s a very wise judge,” she said.