I love this game!! Seriously good to see someone challenging this sort of treatment regardless of how it comes out.

I wonder whether posting this particular complaint on a site called "Greedy Associates" was such a shrewd PR move on Charney's part...

Especially if it's true that he initially made a "multi-million dollar demand."

Charney also sent the complaint to Gawker:

http://gawker.com/news/lawsuits/white-shoe-lawyers-probably-didnt-like-philadelphia-either-229093.php

Regardless of the facts, it is highly unprofessional to post this complaint on a public website. Not to mention that those who are not named defendants, but mentioned in the complaint, including a colleague that he worked closely with, has a tarnished reputation - and who could ever trust him again? The emails attached to the complaint are confidential client fee-related memos. Not to mention the S&C partnership agreement attached to the complaint. There was a buzz today at the office, but I lost all respect when I realized that this was carelessly and thoughtlessly placed on a public web site.

Um, am I the only one who views the allegations of anti-Canadian animus as prima facie evidence that this dude is batshit?

I mean ... please.

Believe what you want, but it's true that they don't make Canadians up as partners at S&C, even though they hire a lot of them.

There's no way the plaintiff is a Canadian--no floppy head.

No--it was his rumored lover who is Canadian (and was the subject of disparaging remarks).

Had he not posted the complaint and made himself conspicuous, he wouldn't have been able to garner the (likely) imminent onslaught of support from the general public. The value of his claim rises substantially through publication of his experiences at S&C, which are, by all accounts, unacceptable.

Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding aboot the case, 11:14. Makes much more sense now.

Notably, the S&C email does not deny that Charney's allegations are unfounded, only that it "promptly investigated his assertions . . ., and rejected Mr. Charney’s money demand." While S&C "denies Mr. Charney’s allegations of discrimination and retaliation," this becomes a rather empty statement when it has failed (intentionally or otherwise) to acknowledge whether Charney's allegations have any factual basis at all. After all, if S&C did not discriminate against Charney, why hasn't it simply deny the underlying factual basis of his complaint (rather than merely stating its conclusion)? Perhaps it knows that there's no other way to interpret "bend over and pick it up -- I'm sure you like that."

Honestly, I'm not sure what's more offensive -- THROWING a document and ordering an associate to pick it up, or making a "bend over" joke while doing so.

As with all lawsuits, there are two sides to every story. But one really has to wonder why a) the complaint was posted on Charney's website before it was filed; b) Charney can't or has not found an attorney; c) who the legal genious was who posted the above about why hasn't S&C denied the underlying factual allegation because a) Charney is obviously trying to manipulate public opinion in order to get a bigger settlement; b) there are plenty of attorneys who would be happy to sue S&C and have sued other large firms in discrimination suits so Charney stating that no one will take his suit because they are scared is RIDICULOUS!!!!!!!; and c) S&C isn't disputing the factual allegations because they actually have an attorney to respond to that in the appropriate legal forum. Charney can't have it both ways-bring a lawsuit and then try it in the court of public opinion. Knowing some of the people involved very well, I know that at least some of these allegations are beyond ridiculous. And that's why they are called ALLEGATIONS. People can and do allege all kinds of things in complaints that have no basis in fact. For all of you legal eagles out there, you may recall that from first year law school!

anonymous 2:04, thanks for your obviously bias response to my earlier post (12:07). It is true, as you have kindly pointed out, that allegations are simply allegations, but the fact of the matter is that S&C chose to respond to Charney's allegations in the public forum. (It emailed ATL!). Therefore, I, as a "legal genious (sic)," can fairly evaluate S&C's public denial of Charney's claims. (To do otherwise would be to simply "bend over and pick it up".) Again, for reasons noted in my earlier post, S&C's denial is categorically without substance. And, the common sense question that your common sense has avoided to answer is: Why didn't S&C deny the underlying factual allegations in its freely-given public response, even though it purported to have investigated his claims??? Surely, this omission must raise a tinkle of suspicion in your mind.

Having worked at S&C for many years, the factual allegations in Charney's complaint don't appear that far fetched to me at all.
11.52pm - I totally agree. S&C's public denial has a glaring hole: no denial of the factual allegations after conducting an investigation. Simply a refusal to pay compensation.
If what Charney says has even a fair degree of truth to it - then the real problem with S&C's management is how they investigate complaints against their fellow partners.
Sounds to me like David Harms did a pathetic job of investigating a complaint about sexual orientation discrimination. Had this been properly dealt with (as Kotran appears to demand) it probably all would have gone away with the original perpetrators appologising to Charney and agreeing to undertake some anti-discrim training.
Instead, it looks like he too was a bigot and worked with the others in the group to cover it up.
As for S&C producing a memo from all the other openly gay partners saying how great its been for them at S&C - well so what? That may well have been their experience. It says nothing about Charney's experience.
Give the man his day in court, let him have all the publicity he wants - if he's telling the truth then there are some unbelievably aweful people in that M&A group.