Not First!

I thought biglaw discouraged such distracting relationships like marriage. Focus on the work!

i guess divorce bonuses would bankrupt any law firm.

11:02:

You're missing the point. If you're married, there's no reason to leave work to, say, socialize. Don't worry, your wife will still be there when you get home.

11:04: don't count on it.

This benefit still exists at DPW. They actually outwardly condone two DPW lawyers getting married, ie: intra-office relationships are not frowned upon for some reason.

Is this a wedding gift (you have to get married after being employed), or do you get the bonus if you are married prior to starting at Davis?

I assume all the ugly, bitter, single, childless women who were upset about the childcare and maternity leave policies will be posting comments complaining about this one too.

FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm betting the single childless women make up for it in merit bonus consideration---more hours available to put in. (Unless they're married to another DPW lawyer who also lives at the firm)

11:15, your comment doesn't make sense.

11:12,

The benefit is only enjoyed by those who are married while employed by the firm. It is, therefore, a wedding gift.

do the gays get it too?

W&C gives non-lawyers $100, attorneys get a Stueben glass olive bowl, its worth $500, but honestly I would have rather had the cash.

yeah, what about the gayz?

11:02 wrote: "I thought biglaw discouraged such distracting relationships like marriage. Focus on the work!"

You're missing the point. After marriage comes the purchase of a home and then children...both of which are significant financial burdens that keep you coming to work every day to collect that Biglaw paycheck. Marriage is the first step on the road to Biglaw slavery...which is why partners never mind when associates get married.

what about polygamists?

You're missing the point. After marriage comes the purchase of a home and then children...both of which are significant financial burdens that keep you coming to work every day to collect that Biglaw paycheck. Marriage is the first step on the road to Biglaw slavery...which is why partners never mind when associates get married.

Exactly. Without a wife and kids, I only have to stay long enough to tame my student debt. With a family, and especially in NYC because of the cost of housing and private school education, I am stuck for far longer.

Do DPW associates get the bonus if married before they start?

"Gays" at DPW also qualify for the $500 "marriage" bonus.

11:26
No one is happier than my wife when I bill 12 hours in a day. Bill baby, bill!

11:26
No one is happier than my wife when I bill 12 hours in a day. Bill baby, bill!

Work at a mid-size NYC firm (150 attys) and we offer the same for "life events" while at the firm. The firm offers a $500 congratulatory gift upon marriage and $500 gift for every newborn during your employment.

P.S. This goes for both attorneys and administrative staff.

Yeah, I saw this in The Firm. You come down, nice salary, get a wife and a few kids and start to get really used to the lifestyle.

Then they tell you your biggest client is the Mob. Oh, well. Jimmy and Regan need that private school.

"Work at a mid-size NYC firm (150 attys) and we offer the same for "life events" while at the firm. The firm offers a $500 congratulatory gift upon marriage and $500 gift for every newborn during your employment.

P.S. This goes for both attorneys and administrative staff."

$500 per kid? That's sort of like the increase in welfare you get for popping out more babies.

"You're missing the point. After marriage comes the purchase of a home and then children...both of which are significant financial burdens that keep you coming to work every day to collect that Biglaw paycheck. Marriage is the first step on the road to Biglaw slavery...which is why partners never mind when associates get married."

This is so sad and yet so true. Nothing makes the partners salivate like when they hear that an associate has purchased a nice new home for his family. That mortgage might just help them upgrade their hamptons house. What a pathetic profession this is.

could an associate marry, divorce, and re-marry several times and still qualify for the bonus, or does DPW disfavor subsequent marriages, unlike LEWW?

It's a freaking wedding gift for Christ sake. And from partners who make that much change its a *cheap* wedding gift.

Does everyone really think it is fair for companies to be giving benefits that some employees are eligible for but others are not?

Providing child care, maternity leave and marriage gifts all means giving more compensation to people who choose to have children.

I am not a bitter childless woman, I am a gay man living in New York who has paid several thousand dollars in legal fees to create an contractual arrangement with my partner with some marriage-like benefits. Nobody is subsidizing that or giving me $500.

I'm sorry I can't play along with the straight child-raising families. I tried having sex with a woman, and it made me throw up. So rather than subjecting some wife to a life of unhappiness and raising children in a sham marriage, I am going to just be my gay self. But I don't like the fact that companies give greater compensation to people who have children than to people, like me, who don't.

12:06:

I don't know how you can call $500 a "cheap" wedding gift. I think that's outragreous. Just because an average DPW partner takes in $2m+ does not make a generous $500 wedding gift "cheap."

Just curious, what does everyone think is an "average" amount for a wedding gift (for a non-relative, and assuming cash is given)? I'd venture to say it's between $100-$300.

I think calling anyone's wedding gift "cheap" is petty, especially when it's not cheap.

Again, can this benefit be gotten if coming to the firm already married?

To: $500 is NOT cheap

Consider this, that $500 is from the ENTIRE PARTNERSHIP. If there's 100 partners, that's like five bucks a person.

$500 gift for kids is nice. My firm only sends flowers.

To: $500 IS cheap

it's not like you're inviting the whole partnership to your wedding. I'm sure partners who go to the weddings (if any) give their own, separate gifts.

A $500 wedding gift from one's employer seems like quite a nice and unexpected touch. If you're not ok with applying the standard one normally applies to individual wedding gifts to the employer wedding gift, what standard do you prefer? Do other employers routinely give larger gifts? I feel like I once heard something about a gift horse and a mouth that might be appropriate here....

"The firm encourages children."

12:15, who isn't eligible to have children? can't you adopt, if you like?

I don't see how providing benefits that respond to people's life circumstances are problematic. I mean, should firms stop providing gym benefits because some people can't go to gyms? or, stop subsidizing food in a firm cafeteria because some employees may not be able to eat there?

12:15 -- maybe your several thousand dollars would have been better spent lobbying for legislative change on marriage in Albany... and it seems to me like the firms that are giving this "marriage bonus" to straight couples, they're giving it to all of us gays who contract for "marriage-like" benefits.

I hear the bonus doubles once you hit partner and graduate to your second, trophy-grade wife. By then, alimony and child-support are affordable.

12:16,

I make about a tenth of what the partners make and I give about $200 (or gift equivalent) for work colleagues (gay or straight) even if I don't attend the wedding (which normally I don't). When I made less, I gave less. When I make more...I'll give more.

12:44,

In my experience, they don't give separate gifts they think the "bonus" from the firm is their gift.

I was a first year in Skadden's Chicago office in the early 90's. When I got married, they gave me a Steuben glass bowl as a gift, and it still sits on a table in my house today.

discrimination based on marital status is prohibited in many states and municipalities

1:15,

how is a wedding gift discrimination based on marital status?

1:15,

It is a one time gift. it is not discrimination or a difference in pay. people like you ruin every good thing.

1:17 and 1:21

Would you still think it would not be discrimination if the "one time gift" was $50,000?

Or are you making your argument more based on the seeming de minimus value of the gift?

12:47 - My money would have been wasted on lobbying. Now I have most of the security I need. If I had spent it on lobbying, the bill would still be dead in the Senate, and I would have nothing. I will act in my own best interest - and gambling on the NY State Legislature to pass a marraige bill is not in my interest.

1:21 here. I think the de minimus value of the gift is certainly a factor. It's what makes it seem more like a gift than, e.g., a part of one's compensation.

I don't have a problem with firms giving a $500 gift to associates who get married or have a baby.

I did work at one biglaw firm where all of the female associates were routinely invited baby showers for every female associate having a baby, even if it was a private shower hosted at someone's home. In one case, the "invitation" included multiple emails from the hostess with a list of the pregnant mom's registries, which items not to purchase to avoid duplication of gifts that the woman was expecting to receive from her in-laws, and an invitation to pitch in to buy her "big ticket items." This has nothing to do with the Davis Polk marriage bonus. I just felt like sharing.

i like cheese.

Wow- I drafted interrogatory responses while in labor and all my firm sent was a lousy gift basket full of off-brand baby lotion. Guess that's the difference between an Am Law top 90 firm and Davis Polk.

lawfirms cannot technically give "gifts" because their relationship with the recipient is not characterized as "detached and disinterested."

How can anyone bitch about a firm giving a nice token gift to someone getting married? Good for Davis Polk, and even bigger kudos to them if they also give this to same-sex couples that get married.

Does the $500 gift/bonus/stipend get taxed? Does the firm withhold taxes and/or include the amount in the year-end W2 form?

Doesn't it seem weird that you'd have to ask them for this "gift," as Source 1 says in the post? I'm not necessarily saying they shouldn't give it, but it's a pretty abnormal gift if that's the case.

In some states, you cannot discriminate based on a person's marital status, meaning an employer cannot give an employee a benefit because they are married or, conversly, because they are single.

How is this different then giving a $500 bonus to all employees who are a certain gender, race, or religion?

Does everyone really think it is fair for companies to be giving benefits that some employees are eligible for but others are not?

Providing child care, maternity leave and marriage gifts all means giving more compensation to people who choose to have children.

I am not a bitter childless woman, I am a gay man living in New York who has paid several thousand dollars in legal fees to create an contractual arrangement with my partner with some marriage-like benefits. Nobody is subsidizing that or giving me $500.

I'm sorry I can't play along with the straight child-raising families. I tried having sex with a woman, and it made me throw up. So rather than subjecting some wife to a life of unhappiness and raising children in a sham marriage, I am going to just be my gay self. But I don't like the fact that companies give greater compensation to people who have children than to people, like me, who don't.

Society encourages stable, child-producing heterosexiual unions. This encouragement is reflected not only in corporate benefits afforded to such copuples, but also through Government tax credits and deductions. When society begins to encourage homosexuality, you'll get your benies too.

2:06,

You just have to notify the proper people that you are getting married. Just because you invite 10 of your closest colleagues doesn't mean the powers that be are independently informed of your big day. When they are informed, they can give the gift.

"In some states, you cannot discriminate based on a person's marital status, meaning an employer cannot give an employee a benefit because they are married or, conversly, because they are single.

How is this different then giving a $500 bonus to all employees who are a certain gender, race, or religion?"

Uhh..because these are protected classes. Marital status is not. Were you absent the day they taught law in law school?

"In some states, you cannot discriminate based on a person's marital status, meaning an employer cannot give an employee a benefit because they are married or, conversly, because they are single.

How is this different then giving a $500 bonus to all employees who are a certain gender, race, or religion?"

Uhh..because these are protected classes. Marital status is not. Were you absent the day they taught law in law school?

I don't think this is just Biglaw. I work for a botique firm and my wedding brought in about a $400 gift + others giving personal gifts as well.

Oh, and let me just say, that the average wedding gift is NOT $100-$300 - at least not with my cheap ass family.

02:17 PM - In SOME states (but not under federal law) marital status is a protected classification. For instance, in California, it is a protected classification in the state's employment discrimination law.

And they don't teach this in law school. Trust me. They just teach basic federal employment law BS, which doesn't cover 90% of the stuff if you're practicing in a liberal state like CA or NY.

in california marital status is a protected class, biotch. go check the unruh act and feha.

2:13 -- I get the practical aspects of making the transaction happen, given the size of some firms. But consider if it's your firm's practice to give each attorney a cake or an arrangement of flowers on his or her birthday, as some midsize firms I know do. Could you imagine having to notify the powers that be that your birthday is approaching on X date, and you wish to notify them of your intention to exercise your cake privileges? Even if it's just the reality of having to inform the right people to make the $500 materialize, the nature of the transaction screams bonus, not gift. Whether or not getting the $500 is fair, let's just call it what it is.

I mean boutique.

2:07,

This gift isn't based on the status of being married. Rather, it's a wedding gift (which comes when one preforms the act of getting married) - there's a big difference between the two.

Same for having children - it's not that you get paid more if you have children, but that you get a gift when your child is born. It's not differential payment for attaining a certain status, but for having a certain event occur.

I don't see the difference. The firm is essentially giving a $500 bonus to employees who get married, thereby excluding (discrminating) against employees who are not married. That is marital status discrimination. However, it really depends on how the firm defines this "gift." If they actually have a policy saying everyone gets $500 for getting married then that would be much more discriminatory than if it was an informal policy where a gift was purchased for employees who get married.

One of my gay (but otherwise white male) friends from law school got a $10,000 "diversity" bonus when he started at his firm, presumably just for being gay. So being gay doesn't always get you the short end of the stick.

Also, why are childless women here constantly characterized as "bitter"? Some women are quite happy to be child-free, thank you.

actually, the gift can only go to someone who is unmarried at the time they enter the firm (or who later divorce and remarry). People who come to the firm married and never divorce can't get married and get the gift either.

Given that, how is this discrimination on the basis of the status of being married?

Oh and btw, there are plenty of "ugly, bitter" married women with children.

2:43, nice pun

02:45 - Discrimination does not have to be all or nothing. It would still be race discrimination if a firm said that only 6'0 tall males of a certain race get $500 bonuses even though members of that race under 6'0 don't get the benefit.

Just because ALL married associates don't get the $500 doesn't mean that a non-married associate would not have a marital status discrimination claim.

It's not discrimination because it's not compensation... it's a gift.

No offense to the parents who read ATL, but personally, I'd be bitter if I did have children! However, I think the reason that everyone assumes that the childless people are bitter is that the posts on ATL indicate that an overwhelming majority of Biglaw associates are humorless, bitter, and angry.

It is totally out of line for a firm to pay someone a diversity bonus. I am a gay man, and I would be extremely insulted to be offered $10,000 because I like cock.

Employers should not distribute compensation and benefits based on non-work-related attributes.

12:15, I don't disagree with you, but this happens all the time. I.e., an URM offered a job despite lower GPA, etc.

As a gay man, I'm totally fine with firms giving out wedding gifts and childbirth gifts. Just because I will never have children, I don't begrudge my employer for giving my colleagues a gift when they have a child. And if the firm doesn't want to give me a gift if I ever get married to another man, I won't cry discrimination. Jesus christ it's a GIFT.

or a non-URM getting a job b/c their dad works for a client, etc

I got a cake party when I got married and lunch with a partner. He said good luck b/c he thought I was quitting like the previous female associate who got married. I didn't. Then I had a baby and I got flowers and a porcelain piggy bank from Tiffanys.

It's a tradition that has endured from a time when we were much smaller, and when $500 meant something. It's also given to gay people who have celebrated commitment ceremonies. It's not intended to finance the downpayment on the couple's apartment; it's simply a polite gesture.

The same logic would apply to graduation gifts for children, reimbursement for gym memberships (due to disabilities, some can't join), college savings plans, and child care subsidies.

If we wanted to eliminate fully the appearance of showing favoritism to straight couples or people without physical disabilities (for the health club membership), we would have to eliminate all of these.

3:11 - You really think it's not discrimination for the firm to give a married straight couple a gift but not a married gay couple? Are you really a gay man or just a shill?

It is also probably cheaper to have an admin assist. process the $500 that to pass around a card for people to sign and waste valuable time eating cake together and saying nice things.

3:19 - yes, apply that logic, and just pay everyone more money. Let them spend it as they see fit.

White Girls With Asian Guys

DIVERSITY BONUS? COULD THIS POSSIBLY BE TRUE?!?

12:15, in response to your 3:24 comment, there are a lot of tax benefits to receiving certain benefits and perks versus a cash payment. For example, if your firm gave you the $3k+ that they likely pay on your behalf every year in health insurance premiums, because someone else in the firm may be enrolled in their spouse's plan and not receive that annual subsidy, you would have to pay taxes on that money. Since I pay enough taxes already, I'm not really willing to say that because I am currently single and childless, I want to give up all non-taxable benefits because someone in my firm might be "maxing them out" more than I am.

I don't know very much about Davis Polk, but my guess is that if they provide this gift, they are probably not cheap in other respects. I would much rather work at a firm that is generous with its associates, even if it is not always evenly applied, than at one of the firms that gives you a $15 per person limit for summer associate lunches and won't pay for your cab ride home at night. If I were so upset by bureaucracy or my perception that married people with kids get more than I do in a Biglaw firm, I would go start my own firm.

Cravath's zoo party is tonight. While single people are allowed to bring a guest in lieu of a spouse, attorneys with kids are also allowed to bring all of their kids with them! But childless attorneys (single or married) are still limited to the one guest. How is that fair? The firm should take the value of the hot dogs, chicken fingers, and cotton candy to be consumed by the kids, and pay out an equivalent amount to childless attorneys.

Yes, the diversity bonus was real. I'd rather not name the firm because I don't think my friend would appreciate it. I'm sure this is something that is done but not publicized so as not to piss other people off.

Both STB and DPW both have a big party every year specifically for the kids of all employees. They should pay out a pro-rated bonus to all childless employees based on the cost of the event.

You must be joking. All of you. You can't be serious. It's a freaking gift. No one's shitting in your face or discriminating and it has nothing to do with taxes or laws or any of that shit. Gifts are one of those nice things that nice people do to other nice people just to be nice.

Would it be discrimination if Davis Polk gave out the "gift" to attorneys getting married, UNLESS it was a white girl marrying an asian guy?

4:06, I think the majority of the comments here are meant to be sarcastic.

4:22
It would be discrimination, but not illegal discrimination, because this is a gift, not compensation, and individuals (and partnerships) are free to give gifts (or not give gifts) to whomever they choose.

4:28(1):

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's pretty self-centered as a gay person to view this as discrimination. The whole world doesn't need to be like you, or have to rid itself of all kindness and niceties that are intended to celebrate a significant life event just so you won't be offended.

If New York State recognized gay marriage/civil union, I'm more than sure DPW would also give the gift to its gay and lesbian associates who marry/unite civilly. Your beef is with the NY legislature, not DPW. With all the nasty stories of how firms treat their associates, I think this gift policy should be applauded.

You need to recognize that not everyone is gay, or even cares that you are gay, the same way you want everyone else to recognize that not everyone is straight.

No. It's fucking morons (perhaps law students) who like to pretend they're "thinking like a lawyer" throwing out buzz-words and "analyzing" the facts. Fucking morons, is what it is.

Get a life douchebags. You sound like pricks to the outside world, and you sound like idiot pricks to non-douchebag lawyers (the few of us that there are).

Setting aside the question of whether the gift/bonus is inappropriately discriminatory on the part of the firm, it should be understandable why singles might get a bit miffed by it. Leaving kids (which are definitely a drain on parents' wallets) out of the picture, getting married only improves a person's financial status. A single person living alone has to pay a mortgage or rent and all of his or her bills out of one paycheck, while a married couple gets to split all of that and also pool their paychecks. And look at gift-giving -- married couples always seem to become like one person for purposes of giving gifts ("look what WE got you"), yet remain two individuals for purposes of receiving gifts (e.g., two separate birthdays). I get totally hosed when it comes to exchanging gifts with my married sisters and their husbands, being expected to give out twice what I receive, despite having only one income.
No, I'm NOT saying that a person celebrating getting married shouldn't be able to receive a nice congratulatory cash gift from her firm -- that is a nice gesture. But damn it -- I'm entitled to be at least a little annoyed at once again getting the short end of the money stick just because I'm single, without being called bitter or a "fucking moron."

12:15: touche

Boo-frickety-hoo 4:54. You're born black. You're (arguably) born gay. You're not born married. Maybe, just maybe, someday you'll find a nice little man or woman and settle down and get married too, just like all your married friends. Get a life and get over yourself.

4:06 -- what does the fact that being married is not an immutable characteristic have to do with it? Oh, and you are clearly a douchebag, btw.

You know what I just realized? Microsoft discriminates. The original x-box is black. The x-box 360? It's white. But wait yet again- the x-box 360 elite? It's black.

Must've been affirmative action to right the wrong of the previous discrimination.

Analyze that dumbfucks.

(Now THAT'S sarcasm, 4:28, you git.)

4:54, 5:02-

You are clearly a dumbfuck. Whining that married people have a better gig than single people is so stupid. OF COURSE it's a better gig. Why the fuck do you think people CHOOSE it? Why do you think married people are happier on average, have more sex on average, and are more financially well-off on average than single people?

You are a clearly a dumbfuck, which is why you are clearly still single (and bitter).

You're sterotyping yourself. Not all married couples have two incomes. I'm married, and my wife doesn't have an income.

But you know what? I don't mind getting birthday gifts for my brothers, or their wives, or their kids either. On the contrary, it makes me happy to see their faces when they open the gifts.

And you know what else? I don't expect anything in return. It's called altruistic gifting. That's how gifts are supposed to be given.

That's life. The people in your life don't have to be the same as you. That's just the way it is. If I was the only married one, and they were all single, it wouldn't be any different.

"getting married only improves a person's financial status"

until you get divorced

Oooh. 4:54 and 5:17(1) both are full of angst. I think servicing themselves isn't doing it for either of them. Maybe they should get together?

5:17(2) seems to be doing fine.

LAST!

4:06 -- That's exactly what I was saying. It IS a better gig in many ways, finances being one of them. And because that's one respect in which life isn't fair sometimes, one can recognize that and find it annoying without begrudging the married people the advantages they have.
5:17 -- You're absolutely right that gifts are to be given altruistically. I wish I could say I never thought about the fact that I'm getting the short end of the stick in the gift department, but I have. And I continue to give generously because I enjoy it, but it means I continue to get screwed.

5:46,

Why do you continue to get screwed? Because your giving of gifts and receiving of gifts doesn't net out to zero? That's messed up.

This is creepy. What difference is $500?

If you want to score a touchdown, you have to play football. If you don't like football, or can't play it, then don't bitch if someone who is playing gets the six points and you get nothing. They also have to risk being tackled, etc., whereas you don't.

If you want a wedding gift from your firm, you have to get married.

I don't own a home, and I don't complain that I don't get to write off my rent on my taxes, even though home "owners" get to write off the interest paid on their mortgages. If I want that benefit, then I need to play that game.

Reading ATL on a regular basis has confirmed for me that most lawyers are uptight douchebags -- at least the ones who read this blog. I'd like to give the hypocritical douchebag of the day award to 4:06, for essentially admonishing everyone else to chill out in multiple insulting and angry postings. Thanks for feeling free to post your own opinion when apparently no one else is entitled to do so.

On the original subject, Weil gives gifts from Tiffany & Co. for "life events." The birth of a child gets you a silver spoon and marriage gets you a chrystal vase. They also send $100 of flowers or a $100 gift to charity for the death of an immediate family member.

Cold, hard cash....a true old school wedding gift from an old school organization.

I continue to get screwed because my sisters just sign their husbands' names to the same gift they'd have gotten me before they got married, when they know that I'm getting gifts for them and for their husbands. I don't have to expect my gifts to net out to zero to notice that and be annoyed by it, albeit not annoyed enough to stop gifting as I have been.
And kudos to those of you who know enough about a person from reading a blog comment to make scathing judgments about the person's character. That's a remarkable skill.

Quinn Emanuel gives a $15,000 diversity stipend to *summer* associates.
http://www.quinnemanuel.com/recruiting/

4:54: I'd stop giving gifts to both your sister and her husband. I think it is fine to get them (jointly) something for their house. If you really want to give your sisters something, do so and include a smaller gift for the family to enjoy.

I'm sure your sisters and extended family would feel terrible if they felt you were feeling imposed upon. If they are acting like one unit, they want to be a unit, so joint gifts are fine.

7:12 -- nice of you to give advice without judgment. Thanks!

Re: Quinn Emanuel's "diversity scholarship"

What's considered a diverse racial or ethnic background? If you're white, but adopted by Indian parents, does that count?

Can’t believe that with all the vitriolic comments on this board, no one has pointed out that getting married and having kids is actually a common way for women to unshackle themselves from biglaw. Men, on the other hand, find the opposite is true- marriage and kids assures your continued servitude. Seems to me that firms should give marriage bonuses to men, and pink slips to women. Oh wait, thats illegal. Too bad.

Clearly an office should be completely sterile, furnishings should be limited to plain functional steel, walls should be blank and painted an inoffensive gray, people should dress in uniforms, and communications should be limited to discussions of work tasks among diverse groups satisfying criteria related to age, gender, race and sexual orientation. Then all you uptight PCers will have the environment you want and deserve.

Wow, I considered myself PC until I read this thread. To begrudge someone else a gift is petty. I'm married (childless by choice, and not bitter) and I only took one day off work when I got married. I can count on one hand the number of wedding gifts we received, because we didn't invite anyone. Am I bitter that other people got extra days off of work or more wedding gifts? Of course not!

Have we even established that DPW won't give this gift to same-sex partners upon their commitments?

Single people may not be getting glass doodads or $500, but they also aren't risking half of their Biglaw salary every time they come home hours later than they thought they were going to be home. Biglaw has to pay well, because alimony is expensive...

As a lesbian associate in California, I would consider it discrimination if I wasn't eligible for a benefit or a gift, upon partnering/marrying (I guess legally in California, that would require entering into an ersatz-marriage state-recognized "domestic partnership" at the moment), that a straight married couple received. It is irrelevant whether it is legally actionable discrimination, as no one in their right mind would sue their employer over a $500 gift. It would simply cause me to draw attention among my colleagues to the unequal treatment and formally request reconsideration.

At the end of the day, it's $500. It's not a big deal to any biglaw associate, most likely. It's simply a nice gesture, and one that I'd like to believe my employer would extend to me on equal terms with my straight colleagues, regardless of the fact that I fall in love with women rather than men (and regardless of what the California legislature/Governator/Cal Sup Ct or anyone else may be doing or failing to do with respect to my civil rights.)

2:56, 6:15:

What's hypocritical? I didn't say these people couldn't have or voice opinions, I'm just saying their opinions are stupid.

And now I would like to say that you too are stupid.

I think we've pretty much established that DPW gives the same gift to gay people who get "partnered" as it does to straights who get married- which is simply common courtesy. I suspect this is the practice at most big law firms. Everybody take a chill pill.

How are people supposed to find time to date and get married??? This is discimination against people who actually work the amount they're pressured into working.