Exactly. What S&C needs is to find someone who will say, "Eric Krautheimer, Alexandara Korry, James Morphy and Benjamin Stapleton are far from prejudiced in any way." Good luck.

No they don't need to do that. The law doesn't say "Whenever a homosexual accuses you of trivial comments you have to produce someone who proves they weren't made or pay him $10mil." This case has no chance in hell.

Note that Erik Krautheimer has been harassed for attending a low ranked law school, and because of his looks, far worst than Charney allegedly was.

Krautheimer may have been improperly maligned on this board for things like his looks and education, but importantly, none of those comments have been put forth by anyone who has even a shred of authority over him nor have they occurred in a professional setting. BIG difference.

How do you know what people with authority said about him?

And fundamentally, what is the difference? You people and Charney have used the media to harass him in a way which IMO is far worse than what Charney alleges happened to him.

Why is it OK in your eyes to insult someone based on their looks or their school, but not based on their homosexuality?

Why is it so hard to believe that S&C could have a couple of bad seeds? Look at Cravath's former tax associate! If you are a prejudice person that is not going to change just because you work for S&C!!!

anon, at no point did i say that it was ok to harrass krautheimer based on his looks or his education (see "improperly maligned"). but whatever the nature of the comments, there's a big difference between comments posted on an anonymous internet board and comments in a workplace by a supervisor.

"The law doesn't say 'Whenever a homosexual accuses you of trivial comments you have to produce someone who proves they weren't made or pay him $10mil.'"

How far from the truth is this in practice, though?

The rabidness of the attacks on Krautheimer show the frivolousness of Charney's relatively trivial complaints.

Waaah, that ugly guy from New England College of Law told me to bend over and said something about poop.

Other than Charney, the people mentioned in the complaint, and probably some other S&C lawyers, none of us know what happened and what's true or not. But we do know that Charney claims to be seeking redress for a wrong done to him, and he's doing this by launching a media campaign against a firm, disclosing embarassing info (the partnership agreement and the emails about S&C clients -- what do those docs have to do with his claims?), and naming lots of non-defendants in the complaint and revealing things about them (not always accurate) when all he had to do was refer to them as "associate x" or some such. And he posts the complaint all over the internet. One who does these things does not come off as a credible, reasonable person. He could have pursued his claims the way most people do and all the justice in the world would still have been available to him. Instead he's trying to smear everyone involved and the firm as a whole.

um, what's the rule of law that says that we assess the merits of a harassment claim in light of obnoxious comments on a website about the defendant? did someone change the standards for motions to dismiss/summary judgment while i was in the bathroom?

Ya know, I thought a lot about the publicity factor with Charney and my conclusion is that the little guy has no choice. The might and power of a place like this law firm are so unbelievable. It has purported connections that we cannot begin to imagine. It has unlimited resources to boot. I agree that this firm could easily do a smear without looking like it's involved at all. Goliath is seriously mighty here folks. Who knows what it has managed to stamp out.

Harassment is effectively defined based on a community standard, which I think can be measured by internet comments. This is why plaintiff's lawyers don't touch frivolous claims suits.

anon, you improperly conflate independent issues.

the virulence of dumb comments about the defendant has no bearing whatsoever on whether a claim is meritorious, regardless of the standard. was there improper harrassment? i don't know. but am i going to make that determination based on the irrelevant and insulting things that people say about the defendant? absolutely not.

and whether or not you can gauge harrassment based on internet comments, your conclusion about the suits that plaintiffs' attorneys will or will not touch doesn't follow.

That's not your place to say. A judge and jury have the authority to decide this case and I predict they'll laugh Charney out of court, and possibly sanction him for using the court system to access the media.

Our legal system is not a frivolous tool by which publicity seeking homosexuals can get their five minutes.

In response to Thoughts, your point is not unreasonable nor uncommon. But I've handled similar cases brought against other firms in the same league as S&C, i.e. NYC big firms including what most people consider top 10. The plaintiffs are repped sometimed by hacks, sometimes by reputable plaintiff's side lawyers. And the cases do go forward, whether in court, mediation, or arbitration. S&C is powerful, but it is not above the law (ha!) and it cannot magically make lawsuits go away but for the attention of the media. A smart S&C M&A lawyer who has, by his own admission, consulted with attorneys about representing him, knows or should know this.

P.S. If you feel so strongly about Charney's case, then put your time and money where your mouth is and represent him.

You won't, because you know you're being dishonest about how NY courts view these cases.

Anyone else wonder when an S&C M&A associate found time to draft his own complaint?

anon, you miss my point entirely.

you are absolutely right that ultimately it's not my place to decide whether or not this suit has merit. as i said, i really can't say, since i'm not an expert in employment law. but neither is it yours. and, my point was (which admittedly i could've stated more clearly) that whether it's the judge making a decision based on the pleadings, or the jury finding the facts and applying the law, the ramblings of people on the internet attacking the defendant have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the case. that's black letter 1L stuff.

and i don't even know how to respond to your unhealthy focus on "publicity seeking homosexuals."

Sigh. Of course society has an impact on the judge's decision. It's effectively a community standard.

And of course the virulence of the comments impacts the judge's decision.

The judge and jury are human beings and they live in society.

"sigh." "society" does not equal dumb comments on the internet attacking a defendant. and regardless of feelings about a defendant and how they manifest themselves, those shouldn't have any bearing on whether there's actionable discrimination.

hypothetical: if mother theresa bitchslaps someone intentionally, could a judge, based on the pleadings, still find a cause of action for assault to survive a motion to dismiss? even if there's loads of information out there on the internet about what a good and decent human being she is? and even if the plaintiff is a total miscreant? should those factors matter with regard to the cause of action as pleaded?

i think you're letting your obvious hatred of the plaintiff color your views. i don't know whether i believe the allegations or not; i haven't seen any of the evidence. do i think it's a particularly strong case? not really. but my point is and remains that it would be improper to view the facts as pleaded in light of extraneous commentary.

The comments on this board are evidence of the community's tolerance for harassment.

We live in a society which freely harasses people for a variety of reasons. Again look what you guys did to Krautheimer.

1) the relevant community with regard to that particular lawsuit is the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, not random denizens of the internet at large.

2) you seem to think that everyone here believes that insulting that partner is ok, which is not the case

3) members of society do harass others for a variety of reasons, which admittedly sucks. some of it is actionable by statute (i.e. harrassment by a supervisor of an employee in the workplace on the basis of a protected status) and some of it is not (i.e. harrassment on an internet board based on an unprotected status). that the latter happens is unfortunate, but it has no bearing on the former.

It is not your place to make those decisions. The judge has the authority to make those decisions. Please put "If I were the judge I would say" before your assertions.

And where did you ever see a case say that S&C employees are held to a higher standard than the average "society" employee?

A few links for you

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/05-02761.PDF

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/04-04006.PDF

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/04-01734.PDF

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/06-01988.PDF

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYSC/99-01424.PDF

Does the author of this blog perhaps have any thoughts (personal perhaps?) about being gay or feeling the need to be closeted at a NYC law firm? :)

Incidentally, Virginia law firms have plenty of openly gay associates (hired well before the 2003 Lawrence ruling.)