Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: 125 Broad Street Is a Gay Paradise!
Move over, Fire Island. See ya later, Provincetown. Rehoboth Beach, you're all washed up.
The gay destination of choice for summer 2007? This may come as a surprise to you, but it's 125 Broad Street, New York, New York -- home of the estimable law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell (plus the ACLU's LGBT Rights Project).
From Aaron Charney, the plaintiff in Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell:
I am informed by numerous sources that David Braff (at right), on behalf of certain gay S&C partners, circulated a memorandum stating that such partners are pleased with the work environment at S&C.
What exactly makes Sullivan such a fabulous workplace for gays? Is it the subsidized gym? The proximity to S&C client Goldman Sachs, home to countless cute banker boys with seven-figure incomes? The complimentary cosmos served in the firm cafeteria?
If you have a copy of this memo, please send it our way, by email.
We're looking forward to seeing it. But Charney seems less than impressed:
Braff’s memo directly misses the point. My complaint concerns the discrimination and retaliation perpetrated by S&C against me. S&C clearly has no defense against the allegations enumerated in my Complaint and instead seeks to muddy the waters by trying to divert people’s attention away from the issue at hand. S&C’s campaign of diversion is the latest example of S&C’s unwilling[ness] to enforce the firm office manual’s anti-discrimination policy and confirms why I was left with no choice but to pursue this legal matter.
Charney's willingness to speak freely about the case -- or to try it in the court of public opinion, as his critics claim -- may explain why he seems to be winning the PR war, at least at the current time. In our reader poll, which is still ongoing, about two-thirds of respondents support him over S&C.
(But that is down somewhat from the 75 percent support that Charney enjoyed earlier in the afternoon. Could an anti-Aaron backlash be developing?)
Update: One of you has posted what appears to be the gay partners' memo in the comments. Thanks!
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)
(15) Comments
This kid is not looking for publicity. He's not an idiot, even if he is crazy as some people say. He must know that this could end his legal career. The legal world is not like Hollywood. Lawyers and their clients worry about image. Paris Hilton may have gotten famous because of a sex tape, but a corporate lawyer's career would be snuffed out by any such controversy. I think the fact that he did this, even with all the attendant risk, shows that he's not in it for publicity. Also, he wouldn't be in this for the money. He's clearly not the type of person who wants to lounge around and just be handed dollar bills. He's a hard worker (phi beta kappa and magna cum laude at Brown; Columbia Law School; S&C's notoriously demanding M&A group). He doesn't seem the type who would be happy leading a reclusive life where all of his past accomplishments are useless to him even with all the money in the world. Just my two cents.
It's clear that "Anonymous" is actually Charney. He's a moron who should have just lateralled to a gay-friendly firm and spread his anti-S&C bias through the rumor mill. He's torpedoed his legal career. I hope his parents didn't pay for it. I hope he doesn't have any more loans outstanding.
This guy is so, so looking for publicity. Yesterday he says this to Lat:
"Some lawyers I spoke with wanted to resolve this dispute non-publicly and behind the scenes, instead of taking the opportunity to draw attention to an important problem. But I wanted it to be handled in a way that drew attention to the issue."
Today he complains that S&C misses the point because his lawsuit is concerned with the alleged discrimination/retaliation against HIM. Well, if he's not claiming rampant discrimination -- and he says he's not -- then why announce his lawsuit with an article in the NY Observer and notices to this site, Gawker, and Greedy Associates. He could have "pursued this legal matter," as he puts it, by filing his lawsuit the way 99% of other plaintiffs do it -- without press releases and interviews. Maybe because Charney is an M&A lawyer he didn't know that the courts will in fact receive lawsuits and process them even if there is no media fanfare.
Maybe he doesn't think he needs a lawyer, but he does need some PR assistance. He is very clearly attempting a public smearing of S&C, and then he feigns shock when S&C denies the allegations, and bizarrely argues the S&C misses the point when its members try to put up a public defense by, naturally, countering his insinuations of anti-homosexual biases at the firm. Whether or not his legal claims have any merit, Charney is not worth any further attention from anyone.
S&C's building (125 Broad St.) is also home to the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights, so it certainly is a gay paradise at least in that respect.
As openly gay and lesbian partners here, we were surprised to see the allegation made by an associate that the firm fosters a hostile work environment for gay and lesbian employees. In our personal experience, nothing could be further from the truth. To the contrary, in our experience, the firm is a remarkably hospitable place for lesbian and gay employees. None of us has any doubt about the firm's commitment to maintain an open environment for all its employees, and to judge its employees solely on the basis of their performance.
David Braff
Donald Crawshaw
Mitch Eitel
Michael Escue
Stacey Friedman
David Hariton
Steven Holley
John O'Brien
David Rockwell
Don Toumey
Rick Werthheim
Wow that's a lot of gay partners!
Is it just me, or are S&C attorney pictures cropped just a little too tightly on the attorneys' faces? Some of these people are scary - I'd rather have a little more of their jackets or the background to look at instead.
I don't know... it is kind of skeeving me out that the firm has lawyers posting stuff on this blog
I wonder why so many people feel compelled to jump in and side with S&C on the one hand, or AC on the other. Let the facts evolve! Now, as a 62-year-old gay lawyer ready to retire, who experienced all the rages of hatred against gays that existed in my youth and young adulthood, I know better than most how deep the currents of hatred run. I make no favorable judgment for S&C because they plaster a favorable paper record on the issue. Paper is cheap. I don't know AC either. But I will give him a chance to air his issues before I decide he has some ulterior motive. Frankly, this course of action is not in his best economic interest as far as I can tell. But who knows....
Look, re Charney, it is just not emotionally healthy to go from competitive school to competitive firm and put yourself in this pressure keg of a lifestyle. Something's got to give.
The vast majority of people get the fuck out and go work somewhere else. A small deranged percentage stay. But sometimes, people snap, and does something crazy that gets them out of the environment, like this guy seems to have. (or they out themselves as the author of a pseudonymous blog, like opinionista or david lat, effectively ending their job for them).
By all accounts, there are more homosexual than Republican partners (and most likely, more homosexuals than there are practicing Christians) among the S&C partnership. Not surprising for a firm that represents terrorists committed to destroying America, but still sad given that S&C is supposed to be more "conservative" than many of its peer law firms.
A homosexual associate at S&C complaining that his firm is insufficiently supportive of the homosexual lifestyle is tantamount to a conservative Christian student at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University complaining that his school is insufficiently supportive of conservative Christian values.
This is an historic legal case. The "good-ol-boys-n-girls" in-house behaviors (read unlawful) will only be seconded by another soon-to-be revealed, high-profile case in NY. Who's to say his pro se isn't being monitored/coordinated by tangential powerhouse legal counsel? Often the real movers and shakers remain as the "bete noire" for the long-term and wide-spread effects. This is more than David v Goliath. This is life-altering to the straight-closet of subtle homophobia and hate crimes.
I've read the complaint. It is very difficult for me to believe it's made up. It's way too specific. It's either true, or AC is totally crazy (the former seems more likely).
The fact that the firm is otherwise gay-supportive doesn't mean that certain bad apples didn't behave badly. Everyone who has ever worked at a large firm knows that two people at the same firm can have wildly different experiences depending on which people you work with. I don't think you can dispute that S&C has, like most large law firms, been objectively supportive of gay people. But none of that is inconsistent with a couple partners behaving badly, and then others rushing in to try to clean up the mess the best way they know how -- pretend the problem didn't happen and try to get the problem out the door so it goes away.
I'm in-house counsel following this closely. It seriously impacts my view of outside counsel, but I'm not passing judgment yet.
I assure you, Addy, this is NOT Charney.