During the period of awaiting Summary judgement (Title VII violation charges), a defendants legal staff (On-Payroll legal staff) and the firm which represents the defendant in Federal court are well documented as planning during discovery to find alledged Copyright violations against plaintiff for the purpose of leverage against plaintiff's Title VII pending litigation. During the time period of awaiting summary judgement the defendant's On-payroll attorney drafted and delivered 3 letters to the principles of another company (1 of 4 principles was the plaintiff in the Title VII charges). The EEOC having already found in favor of the plaintiff for race discrimination as well as retalitory actions of the defendant, by way of termination of employement after plaintiff filed with the EEOC.
The defendant's alledged Copyright letters demanded money and threatened litigation for alledged Copyright violations. Each of the threating letters were "cc'ed" to the attorney of the firm representing defandant in Federal Court (Title VII action). The attorney representing defentant in Federal Court, conducted quesitoning (during Title VII discovery) directly to the subjects of Copyrighted materials. This same attorney is well documented as having communicated during the early portion of discovery to uncover alledged Copyright violations to use as leverage against plaintiff's the Title VII charges.
The 3rd of the three letters from the defendants On-payroll attorney stated that the option to litigate the 4 principles, for the alleged Copyright violations, was not withdrawn and were not closed.
The attorney (outside firm representing defendant in Federal Court) offered a swap of dropping Copyright threatened copyright litigation (by On-payroll attorney), if the plaintiff would drop the Title VII charges while awaiting Summary judgement. This offer was after the 4 principles had received the 3rd letter from the defendants On-Payroll attorney.
Is this lawful with respect to the actions of the attorney representing the defandent in Federal Court as well as the attorney which is employed (on-payroll)? The attorney employed (on-payroll) has been working directly with outside attorney from start to end of the Title VII charges and is assumed to be the primary responsibility of as an employee of the defendant (labor law - not copyright).
Is this possibly considered continued retalitory action against the plaintiff, that should be filed with the EEOC? The 4 principles have responded to the letters from the defendant with respect to alledged copyright violations. The defendant's company has not litigated the alledged copyright violations.
