Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell: A Weekend Newswrap
We have a Google News Alert set to notify us every time there's a new article about Aaron Charney or Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell. As the lawsuit moves forward, we will read and digest all of the news coverage for you. Think of ATL as your "one-stop shopping" source for Charney v. S&C news.
Here are the latest news stories that have been brought to our attention:
1. Lawyer Sues Top Firm Over "Anti-Gay Bias" [New York Post]
This article characterizes Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell as a "$15 million" lawsuit. The version of the Complaint that we've seen, however, seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages ("Prayer for Relief").
We emailed Aaron Charney to clarify this. We inquired whether he had amended his Complaint, or announced an intention to amend it, to seek $15 million in damages.
Charney responded: "I have not amended the complaint or specified damages in the complaint." So this was just an error on the part of the New York Post. Quelle surprise.
2. Bias Charged at Top NY Law Firm [Gay City News]
Not much new in this article, since it's based largely upon prior reporting by other news organizations. The following paragraph was based upon original reporting:
Charney's complaint was being circulated via a Web site on Tuesday and was spreading "like wildfire" among the informal gay law associates network in New York, according to a New York Law School faculty colleague of this reporter who received it via e-mail from a friend.
"[T]his reporter" refers to Professor Arthur Leonard of New York Law School, a contributing writer for Gay City News, who wrote the article.
We speculate that the unnamed faculty colleague quoted by Professor Leonard is Professor William LaPiana, an openly gay trusts and estates professor at NYLS. Professor LaPiana, randomly enough, was the pre-law advisor to Chief Justice John Roberts, when Chief Justice Roberts was an undergraduate at Harvard College thinking about attending law school. See More Grist for the "John Roberts Is Gay" Mill (item 4(b)).
3. Attorney Sues Top Manhattan Law Firm for Discrimination [The Advocate]
The Advocate is a leading news publication within the gay community, so the appearance of this article is by itself notable, as a sign that the community is taking notice. The Advocate article itself, though, is only three paragraphs long, and it contains nothing new.
4. Top Law Firm Sued For Discrimination By Gay Attorney [365Gay.com]
Nothing noteworthy here, except for repetition of the erroneous claim that Charney is seeking $15 million in damages. Where did that come from?
Earlier: Prior ATL coverage of Charney v. Sullivan & Cromwell (scroll down)
(10) Comments
I have to cast doubt on some of Charney's allegations because of his comment that he filed this case pro se because no law firm would want to take on a powerful firm like S&C. What utter BS. Plaintiffs' law firms don't get referrals from S&C or other corporate behemoths. If this case had merit, plaintiffs' law firms would have no hesitation to sue S&C (much like they don't hesitate to sue Fortune 500 companies).
I also find the whole retaliation conspiracy allegations hard to believe. I can see maybe a rogue partner or two making inappropriate comments. But I find it hard to fathom that there was a huge conspiracy among the most senior partners in the law firm to protect a junior partner over something that is legally inactionable (that is, even if you take Charney's allegation about the male partner's comments to be true, it doesn't constitute a hostile environment as a matter of law and there had been no adverse employment action).
Were you there with Charney? How could you know anything. Whether he has counsel or not... why should you care? Personally, I have found that most plaintiffs attys I have met want retainers outside of the P.I. arena and they like to settle things. Litigation is expensive and time consuming for the average plaintiffs atty and in case you have not notices - the scene is not too cushy for even large plaintiff firms these days. Regardless - what does it matter. As for retaliation.... let's see shall we? Again though, why does it all upset you so much? Are you t S&C? You probably are.
"I have to cast doubt on some of Charney's allegations because of his comment that he filed this case pro se because no law firm would want to take on a powerful firm like S&C."
I think that's just a little white lie. He mentioned on that Canadian tv show that the firms he talked to would take the case on the condition he didn't flaunt his claim publicly (they thought they could cash in w/o litigation). One of the first emails from the chairman of S&C mentioned that he had made a complaint with an attorney.
I think more accurately is that he didn't really look that hard and did meet some resistance in finding a firm interested in pursuing this strategy.
It's a small point. Yes, a tad hyperbolic but don't think we can infer much from it.
It upsets me because I want gay law school graduates to be perceived as competent, mature, team players who understand the stresses of biglaw and are an asset to the practice. I don't want them viewed as a risks who are not worth hiring or trusting.
Do you care about the long term effects on the community?
I completely disagree with "skeptical." Anyone with experience against plaintiffs' law firms knows that they are more interested in a quick settlement than anything else. If a plaintiffs' law firm were to take this case, it would be on contingency. Expenses would quickly add up in a case against a large well-funded law firm like S & C. Consequently, any plaintiffs' law firm would want to quietly settle not use the case to bring light to an issue. Aaron already explained this when he said his first lawyer wanted to seek a quiet settlement and not file the action. The greatest leverage they had against S & C for a large settlement was the threat of making this public. If Aaron truly wanted to bring this to light rather than quickly cash-in, he had to do what he did...go at it alone. What I wonder is where all that money I donate to gay legal rights organizations going? Are they too dependent now on Big Law to take a stand?
$15 million is supposedly the figure AC and his lawyer first demanded in the meeting mentioned in RC's memo from the firm.
I have to think that some hungry plaintiffs firm would want to take this case. Sure BigLaw would neer touch it, nor impact lit groups that depend on funding on cooperation from firms, but some guy who is looking for a big pay day? Plus, the press this case is getting is worth the fees alone. Imagine next time a sexual orientation claim against a giant i-bank or consulting form gets filed, they're going to go with the guy (or woman) who made headlines in this case.
All this reminds me - many say that AC's career is over, but he could certaily become an employment rights attorney. Given the support he's seen, I'm sure some one who has felt the way he feels over at one of the banks might give AC a call.
Anonymous -- No, I wasn't there with Charney. But neither were you -- or anyone else posting here. But Charney has made some very serious allegations, and I think we can make some informed speculation about the validity of his claims.
And I find the retaliation claims hard to believe because it would involve a conspiracy among numerous partners and at the highest management level at S&C. And this is where S&C's reputation as a very gay-friendly firm with dozens of gay attorneys is relevant. Sure, you can have a rogue partner who's anti-gay in a pro-gay firm. But to believe Charney's story, you have to have a huge cabal of anti-gay partners conspiring against him.
And Anon90069 -- sorry, Charney isn't a Rosa Parks. He's in it for the money. That's why he first demanded millions of dollars in mid-2006. When that didn't pan out, he's now trying a scorched-earth policy . What reason was there to put the confidential S&C partnership agreement in the complaint? (It's so tangential to the allegations in the complaint that it was clearly done to spite and harm the firm). Or mention that one of his colleagues by name was fired? Again, that was largely irrelevant to the claim.
I disagree that the retaliation needs to involve a large elaborate-scale partner-wide conspiracy, with partners meeting in shadowy conference rooms to plot Charney's downfall on dry erase boards as nefarious music plays in the background and mustaches are twirled.
All that's necessary from the powers-that-be, implicit or otherwise, is a decision, and subsequent action, to shunt this guy to the side because he dared accuse two partners of making offensive statements. You can perhaps infer this from the suggestions that he relocate to a foreign office following his complaint, and from the allegations in the complaint that Korry went ballistic about Charney being a "liar" when she learned of the complaints.
Again, the essence of the Complaint, taking the allegations as true, is not that S&C "hates gays." It's that S&C has a problem with troublemakers and whistleblowers who dare complain about partners.
The question is not whether the firm was discriminating against Charney in fact. It would be whether Charney had a GOOD FAITH belief the firm was discriminating, made a complaint in good faith, and got screwed because of it. And SCOTUS's Burlington Northern has loosened the standard of what evidence may be probative of retailation: now, it's not just materially adverse employment actions, but all those that would dissuade a reasonable employee from making a discrimination complaint.
Anonymous @ 01:12 PM,
Does the New York Administrative Code import SCOTUS decisions and standards? Does anyone know the legal standard under NY Admin. Code?
Yes.