THE VFA PIONEER HISTORIES PROJECT
Sheribel Rothenberg
“I saw the clubs as very symbolic of the exclusionary process of women from the mainstream of money and power. I thought, Well, let’s sue them.”
Interviewed by Judy Waxman, Oral Historian, May 2023
SR: My name is Sheribel Rothenberg, often known as Sheri. I was born in Chicago on February 9, 1944. I graduated from Northwestern University undergrad in 1964 and started law school at Northwestern University, graduating in 1967.
JW: Could you tell us a little about your childhood, your background? What influenced you in those years?
SR: I came from a family of doctors. My brother, my cousin, my dad. And they made it very clear they did not think I could be a doctor.
JW: Because?
SR: Oh, gender, maybe. I would have enjoyed academic work, but I looked around me and through, “There are no women professors.” At undergrad, I cannot remember one. I knew that at University of Chicago Law School, there was a very distinguished Female faculty member who was married to a very distinguished legal scholar. And that was the extent of my knowledge of women in the law. But I thought, “Well, a lot of dilettantes go into the law, and it’s a profession for people who can’t decide what to do. And I can always make a living.
So, I got to law school. I had no idea what a lawyer did. I knew that a lot of the 17th, 18th, and 19th century authors were lawyers. So, I start law school at Northwestern, and there were six or seven women in my class. Four of us graduated. Looking back, there were about four women in every prior graduating class. There was clearly a quota of some kind.
On my first day at Law School at my first class at 8:30 a.m. the first person the professor calls in class is “Mr. Rothenberg.” So, I stood up and I said, “It’s not Mr.”
JW: Wow. That was brave.
SR: Well, what did I know? I had no idea. It was kind of awful. It was awkward. And then came criminal law.
Professor Claude Sowle (later dean of the University of Ohio Law School) taught freshman criminal law. He held ‘Ladies Day.’
Class met in Lincoln Hall, rectangular with stepped desks like a Greek theater lining three sides, the Professor’s podium on one end of the rectangle at other end of ground level [were three seats]. Sowle called me and two other women to sit in the three seats: It was Ladies Day. And we did rape cases. I took my seat. I did not protest… I was not happy, but I recited and answered. And that was the most stunning event in law school on gender that I recall.
JW: Oh, wow. Yikes. So scary.
SR: It was scary. I was 20. I was like a lamb going to slaughter. What did I know? Anyway, so I get through first year and take summer philosophy classes. After second year, I had volunteered at the World Peace Through Law Conference in Washington, D.C. and I met a lot of people – just casually, lawyers who were interested in peace development.
I also worked at National Labor Relations Board in Washington, which was a good experience. As I recall, I was not in an internship program, and no offers were forthcoming. I started looking for a job. The placement office at Northwestern Law both scheduled big firm interview sessions and collected letters requesting applicants. Some letters said they would not hire women. While none said they did not hire Jews, it was known that some firms did not. At the time, large firms were WASP, Catholic or Jewish. There were a few exceptions, but not many. I applied to the State’s Attorney, and several other places. Ultimately, I was hired by a medium size (50-60) waspy firm; first woman, first Jew. I did appeals at first. The head of appeals guided me. “I’ll tell you what points I want you to make, and you just find the law.” And I thought “Oh, okay.”
JW: I guess that is a way some people do it.
SR: He said, “Write the facts clearly, citing the record.” He would review my work and say, “Okay, but make it like this. Just shade it this way or that way.” And I thought, “Okay.” And then he would say, “Here are the points we’ve got to make to win.” And he would give me a list of points and say, “Now, go find the law.” It was quite a good learning experience.
There were virtually no clerkships available to women. Only one judge hired women clerks who were at the top of their class: Julius Hoffman of the Northern District of Illinois. One of his clerks, a partner in a substantial law firm became the first female District Court judge. She was very lonely being a judge, and left to become head of Litigation at Skadden Arps.
I was not fully engaged or interested in the work at my law firm after a year or two. I joined the ACLU Women’s Rights Committee, because I thought, “Okay, that sounds interesting. I will try that.” I feel like an accidental feminist.
JW: Now, this was a paid staff?
SR: No, just a volunteer. So, when I get on the committee, I see that there are just a few of us. The staff liaison said, “We have a case just filed and the sole practitioner needs help.” The case was against all four of the Chicago Daily newspapers. (The Chicago Daily News, out of business; The Chicago American, out of business. The Chicago Sun Times and the Chicago Tribune, which is still Publishing). The allegation was that each paper violated the Civil Rights Act for Listing its Jobs listings ad ‘Male Jobs’ and Female Jobs”. Remember this is before the internet and newspaper ads were where employment opportunities were listed. And I had thought, “Now, that is a good idea. Let’s see what we can do.”
JW: Can I interrupt? What were you asking for?
SR: For want ads to be non-gender based, not “Help Wanted: Male” and “Help Wanted: Female.” So, I thought that was a good idea. I raised my hand, and helped draft responses to motions to dismiss. We lost, but as were drafting the Appeal, suddenly we opened the newspaper and the Want Ads were changed.
JW: Wow.
SR: At this time, the Women’s Rights Committee needed a Chairman. There were so few of us on the Committee. I volunteered.
The first thing I remember doing was saying, “What is obviously discriminatory? Let’s go for the low hanging fruit first and see what we can do.”
One thing the solo practioner mentioned was that, when you are married and you get a law license, it had to be in your first name and your husband’s last name. You could not keep your own name on a law license. It happened to her when she got married. So the Women’s Rights Committee of the ACLU wrote to the Chief of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois and said, “This is outrageous.” I do not remember what we said in the letter exactly, but we said, “This is not right. A woman should be able to choose what name she graduates and practices law in. And if it is her birth name, fine. If it is her married name, fine, but it is her choice, not yours.” And they said, “Okay.”
JW: They should all be like that.
SR: Right. So I thought, “Oh, that’s good,” and I did not think much of it. And then I said, “What else do we see obviously?” Well, all the downtown clubs; the lunch clubs, the private clubs, the men’s clubs, there were I think, six or seven in Chicago at the time. Sears Tower, now called Willis Tower, was just being built, and one of the women on the committee knew the chairman of the board, and suggested, “Why don’t we write him?” I said, “Okay, do you want to sign?” “No, I don’t want to sign.” So, I said, “Okay, I’ll sign.”
I write a letter to the Sears chairman and I say, “We understand you are building this wonderful tower. Plans are great. It is the same architect as the Hancock Center. It is going to be wonderful. And we hear you are going to have a private club on the 60th floor, and we do not want you to make it Men’s Only.” I wait, and nothing happens. I ask this woman who knows him, “You should answer that letter.” I do not know whether she did it or not, but I asked her to ask him. And so, another week or two goes by, and I get a letter saying, “Okay.”
I was thrilled. Shortly thereafter, I got a call from one of the only female on-air prime time news anchors in Chicago television. She tells us, “Listen, women cannot get credit cards in their own name frequently, and almost never if they are married. Why doesn’t ACLU Women’s Rights Committee do a test case. Gather a group of women, two married, two unmarried, two divorced and apply for credit cards.” So I arrange for a gathering to fill out requests for charge cards.
The TV Anchor sends a Camera Crew, and she airs a story on the background and application process.
I think five of the six or seven got credit cards.
JW: But the married women did get their own credit cards?
SR: Yes. At that one store, after publicity. She made very little of the result, because we got what we wanted. The publicity may have tipped the decision. It certainly brought attention to the issue.
Another notable project of The Women’s Rights Committee was to help initiate Rape Kits in Chicago. Cynthia Gehire-Porter, among others met repeatedly with the Chicago Police Department and a coalition of medical providers to produce rape kits, a new tool for identifying perpetrators.
JW: The same one where you started?
SR: Yes. I was still at my first law firm and was looking for a job change but was not making much progress – too busy.
About this time, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission was getting authority to litigate in addition to the U.S. Attorney General due to an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I got a call, because after two cases, I was known as a women’s rights attorney. I interviewed and accepted an offer. In the first several months, I interviewed people for positions at the litigation office. But, okay, I could do that. And we had some good lawyers at first.
When were prepared to litigate, we had boxes and boxes full of EEOC cases from a five-state region.
One we filed was against a fortune 500 company that openly stated it would not hire women because they did not have women’s bathrooms. We prevailed, but not until after trial.
The other was against a machine tool company that classified jobs as Men’s Jobs and Women’s Jobs. And we were litigating this case before the courts took seriously the limits on document productions. The company produced truck loads of boxes and boxes of documents to overwhelm us. I had a great had a team. So, we would go through everything. Buried in the mass was a memo signed by the president of the company and the president union, agreeing to classify all positions as ‘men’s jobs’ and ‘women’s jobs.’ No disputing a mutually signed agreement. We joined the Union in the litigation.
The memo reminded me of a Thurber cartoon depicting a lawyer in court questioning a witness. He is holding a top hat, pulling out a rabbit, and says, “Perhaps this will refresh your recollection.”
JW: And that’s what happened.
SR: And that’s what happened.
JW: Amazing.
SR: Well, we settled the case. I remember delegating the settlement to a very meticulous young lawyer, because I’m a lot of things but meticulous is not one of my stellar traits. She went through everything and did a very good job coming up with a very nice settlement.
In retrospect, with the experience I have now, I feel badly the way we dealt with the company. It was a family held company. They really tried to do the right thing for their employees. It was big and successful, and I am sure some conglomerate bought them, ultimately. But we were not nice.
Nowadays, if I find something that glaring, what I do is I would call up the general counsel or the chairman of the board and I’d say, “Listen, buster, you have a problem, a really big problem.” “Let’s talk. I think it’s in your interest, in our interest,” and in fact, that still works sometimes.
JW: Yes, well, it kind of sounds like the union asked for this designation and the owner went along with that. I’m not excusing them, but when you said they tried to take care of their employees and the letter was signed by the union also, that’s what it sounds like to me.
SR: I agree with you. And I feel now, knowing a lot of people who have owned companies and how they feel about things, and what they try to do; yes, they are into making money, there is no question. But the family held companies under about 500 employees, can be good places to work. And open. I am sure some of them are not, but many of them are quite open.
So, I get to the EEOC, and I do that kind of work and I get an invitation from Ruth Bader Ginsburg to meet with other women litigators from the whole country.
JW: And you had the ACLU connection.
SR: Yes. So, I go to this meeting – we all fit I one medium size conference room. And it is fabulous. I mean, I meet women, several of whom are federal judges still, several law professors. We discussed amending the Civil Rights Act concerning pregnancy discrimination, fallout from LeFleur v. Cleveland Board of Education, and abortion rights and numerous complicated class action cases.
At that time, I had a draft of a Complaint in Illinois State Court I prepared with Stephanie Kanwit, a Chicago lawyer. It was against the major Chicago private, male only clubs for refusing to admit women.
My former law firm would have client board and business meetings at the Union League Club. Once I was going to the Union League Club for a business meeting. I walked in the front door, and the doorman grabs my elbow and says, “there’s a women’s entrance. Let me show you.”
JW: Now, what year was this, do you think?
SR: I think it was ‘1971 or early 1972.
JW: Okay.
SR: So the doorman escorts me to the side door off an alley. It was very gracious. They had a women’s lounge, but women were permitted on only two floors. I said, “Well, I have to be on a different floor for a meeting in a room.” The doorman escorted me up. I was outraged. I was going to a business meeting. There was some foment about that in town at the time.
There was, still is, a very famous German restaurant that had a Men’s Only bar, delicious sandwiches and draft beer. A group of women said, “We want to go, we’re going to go.” And so they did and got kicked out and possibly arrested. But this happened around the same time as I was escorted out the front entrance to the club.
Around that time, both the Mayor of Chicago and the President of the University of Chicago were women. Traditionally, the discriminatory Chicago Club extended membership to both the mayor and the president of the University of Chicago.
The Mayor scheduled a press conference at the Chicago Club, and somehow, they let her in. But the female newspaper and television reporters were barred at the door. They were outraged and it was heavily covered in the Chicago print and television news.
My draft complaint was based on a Chicago Ordinance prohibiting any entity holding a liquor license from discriminating.
JW: Discriminated against on the basis of sex?
SR: The language was vague. At the time it was passed it may have referred to ethnicity and race, but it did not say that. It said discriminate. You could not have a liquor license and discriminate. So we drafted the complaint I had with me in New York at the Ginsburg meeting. We filed it when I returned.
The lead plaintiff was a distinguished senior partner at a major Chicago firm who had three lawyer daughters.
When we filed, there was an enormous amount of press coverage, perhaps because the reporter had been barred and there were more women reporters than there were women lawyers at the time. The clubs responded to the press saying, “Well, it will change the character of club” and “We won’t be able to swim nude anymore.” And “We do not want to expose the ladies to club talk.”
Several of the clubs hired a very powerful Chicago lawyer. Another club hired a woman lawyer from a politically significant family firm. She actually had asked me what I thought, and I said, “Look, you must use your own judgement. I would never do that, but be my guest. You are a lawyer…”
After way too much legal maneuvering and defense motions, we lost. We lost on appeal, too, despite the fact the opinion did not make sense. I remember being interviewed after the decision came down and saying, “the old fossils must be happy tonight,” a line several club members never failed to remind me of.
Many, many years later, the trial judge was a federal district judge – and of course, he remembered me and I remembered him. We were in his chamber getting ready for a settlement conference. I asked what could I have done differently in the club’s case. He said, “Nothing. You could not have won.” And he did not say why. Despite the political pressure he may have been under as a state court judge, he was an excellent federal judge and very respected.
Several years later I asked the appellate judge who voted to reverse what I could have done differently? File for a rehearing? He said, your request would have been denied.
SR: A few years later, a Professor at Northwestern Law School Law and the former U.S. Attorney for Illinois was elected governor. I remember writing to him, something like “I understand you are a member of the Union League Club. It still discriminates against women. I think there are two things you could do. You could change the policy, or you could decline your membership publicly.” He publicly cancelled his membership.
Shortly thereafter, New York City had passed an ordinance that prohibited discrimination on race, gender, national origin, religion, etc. by any City Club that had more than 400 members, reasoning that is not a “private” club but a place of business. So, I said, “Far be it from me to reinvent the wheel.”
Anyway, I drafted an ordinance and went alderman shopping, to find sponsors for the ordinance. We did get two alderman: a progressive white liberal alderman and progressive African American alderman. It passed.
Since then, I have not done any public or class action women’s rights litigation. I have done numerous sexual harassment cases in private practice.
JW: Oh, really?
SR: Some, rather colorful.
JW: Can you give us one example?
SR: Well, I have two that are both juicy, I must say.
JW: Okay.
SR: Both were filed in Federal Court. One was against a major food production company.
I get a call from a Texas lawyer about a young woman who had applied for a job at a major food production company. The client was a friend of the Chairman of the Board’s daughter.
He had a very beautiful house and pool in Palm Beach where his daughter and friend were visiting. Friend had just been laid off from her job. And Chairman said to friend, “Why don’t you apply for a job at my company?” Friend sends him a resume, and Chairman’s company sends her an airline reservation and instructions to meet the company car to go for an interview.
SR: So, she flies up, is met with a company car, and is delivered to an address on East Lake Shore Drive, one of the most elegant streets in Chicago. She enters the building, goes to the suite as directed. The Chairman meets her and says, “Okay, get changed. We are going to meet some of the people you may be working with. So, they go to the dining room at the Peninsula Hotel and meet several executives who are there with their wives, girlfriends, who knows. They quote, “interview” her. And then he takes her back to the apartment, strips to his boxers and you know what happens. She does sleep with him.
Next morning, they meet a friend of hers and her boyfriend for brunch. Boyfriend is Chief Executive at another megacorporation. The men spent brunch discussing whose corporate jet fleet was bigger.
According to my client’s girlfriend, Chairman talks about my client coming to work for his company. Friend returned to Texas. Time passes. After a dew weeks, my client called Chairman and says what about a job? He answers, why don’t I send a jet for you so you can fly to Italy with me. She responds, I do not want to fly anywhere with you, but for a job. Thereafter, no Job. We file a Complaint with the EEOC and prepare a Federal Complaint.
Before I file, I call the corporation’s General Counsel and say, “You have got a problem. Here is a draft of our lawsuit. Let’s talk.” We do not. I file, and there is a lot of press. After beginning discovery the Federal judge assigns the case to a magistrate for settlement. We settle.
Then, it is all over the newspaper again despite the fact the parties agreed to confidentiality as part of the settlement. We go back to court saying we had agreed to a confidentiality clause. We say to the judge, “Look, we settled. We are glad we settled, but look at this.”
And the attorney representing the corporation was the former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District, the judge leans over and says something like, “I know you know how to investigate things. I want you to question each person who reviewed this settlement. Only members of the board reviewed the Agreement. Report back to me who leaked this.”
We go back to court a week later. The former U.S. Attorney says to the judge, “I don’t know who did it.” And he said, “All right, but this is what I’m going to do.” And then he entered an order attaching a substantial penalty for any future violation.
SR: Right. So, about a little while later, guess who was no longer Chairman.
The other juicy one, same lawyer on the other side. It was against one of the major national universities in Chicago. I represented a man, a very distinguished genetics professor, who was seduced by his university hospital psychiatrist. And that was colorful.
JW: I’ll bet.
SR: Yes, we had some recordings. Anyway, I always remember the good lines I have. And what I remember at one point – and this was not public – Mr. former U.S. Attorney for the Northern District, makes me a settlement offer and I look him straight in the eye and I said, “I could sell the movie rights for more.” The reason these stick out in my mind, [is] my ability to respond quickly and cleverly are so rare in my experience.
JW: They’re great. It sums it up perfectly.
SR: It was very colorful. And I have had, not dozens, but many like that. You have no idea. Or maybe you do. I mean, what goes on in the world. Employment law is full of transference where people project their past experiences onto their coworkers and their supervisors, and it is just fraught with possible weirdness.
JW: At least these cases are happening now, right? Maybe it will make things change over time.
SR: I think things have changed for the better. I do not think things are equal. I think there are many reasons, and a lot have to do with childcare. Oh, I did not mention the case against the Chicago Board of Education.
JW: Oh, let’s hear about that.
SR: Again, this is before the amendment to Title VII that changed the definition of pregnancy. I guess I was still with my first law firm and on the ACLU Board.
The Chicago Board of Education had a rule that pregnant teachers had to quit in their fifth month of pregnancy when they begin “to show.”
JW: That was me, in New Jersey.
SR: It was national. ACLU had developed a complaint and it was filed, I know in Cleveland, because LaFleur v. Cleveland Board of Education was decided by the Supreme Court.
JW: I always wished I was LaFleur.
SR: Oh, yes. Well, in Chicago, it was filed at the same time, but we won.
JW: Oh, wow. So, it did not have to go to the Supreme Court?
SR: No, this was before LaFleur.
JW: Oh, interesting.
SR: Or, concurrent. I think ours was definitely first. In Chicago, I was Bravo v. Chicago. I always loved the name. – Bravo v. Chicago Board of Education. Susan Getzendanner was co-counsel. She was more experienced than I. This was the early ’70s.
JW: Yes. If it was before LaFleur, yes.
SR: In Chicago, they put up the arguments you would think they would make. It is dangerous to the pregnancy. It is not to be seen in public. It is not good for children.
JW: Right. That was the main one I remember.
SR: Well, I had a fabulous child psychiatrist lined up to testify and more if allowed. You think children do not know their moms or neighbors are pregnant? Many children talk to their siblings in utero. It is quite typical.
SR: I mean, come on. And it was terribly 19th century to treat it as a secret. You know, as a terrible thing or a dangerous thing. All of the pregnant women I know who were healthy waddled around up until delivery. I know I did. The Chicago Board of Education forced teachers to quit. Or, a lot of women went under the radar, and they just were very big when they were five months pregnant and, oh, the baby was born.
I really feel strongly about it and think there’s a lot to be done. I think some things are changing. But now, women and minorities may be hired, but held to higher standards, not advanced as quickly, not paid as much. Better but not yet equal.
JW: As we finish up, Shari, is there anything you would like to say in final words?
SR: Keep on trucking. I just think it is very important that we recognize inequalities, and it does not do society good to live with that. It loses for it.
JW: I think in a way, you have summed it up. You have contributed to women making progress, and we thank you for that. We have more progress to go. I like to pass the torch on to younger women and I think “Keep on trucking” is a good phrase to give to them. I like that a lot.
SR: Thank you.
JW: Thank you.