Breaking: Sullivan & Cromwell Settles with Aaron Charney!!!
Yes, the Brokeback Lawfirm litigation has come to an end. No, this is not an April Fools' joke.
Sullivan & Cromwell and Aaron Charney ride off into the sunset, with Charney a little sore in the saddle -- from all the money he's sitting on. No more "bending over" for this cowboy.
The scoop, from Anthony Lin, appears in the New York Law Journal:
Sullivan & Cromwell said Thursday it had reached a settlement with former associate Aaron Charney, who sued the New York law firm earlier this year for sexual orientation discrimination."Aaron Charney and Sullivan & Cromwell have resolved their differences in connection with all pending disputes between them," the firm said through a spokesman.
Charney's lawyer, Daniel Alterman of Alterman & Boop, did not return a call for comment.
The settlement, the terms of which are confidential, brings to a close a dispute that had fascinated the New York legal community over the past several months, both with its allegations concerning partners at one of the city's most prestigious firms and its bizarre twists and turns in the courtroom.
The rest of the piece recites the facts of the case and its procedural history, which will be familiar to ATL readers. But it's a clear and cogent summary, and you can read the rest of it here.
We'll have more to say in the morning. In the meantime, have at it in the comments.
Aaron Charney, wherever you are: Good night, and good luck. And if you need any help spending those settlement proceeds -- call us.
P.S. Anthony Lin's article was linked to by Howard Bashman at 10:58 PM, but we're not exactly sure when the news broke. (We just got home from the Georgetown Law EJF auction, which was great fun.)
Sullivan Settles With Former Associate Who Sued Firm for Discrimination [New York Law Journal]
(45) Comments
first?
second and fabulous
Lat, you stink, but this is cool news anyway. Love,
A Former Fan
A Former Fan who checks ATL at 1 AM.
So how much do we think ABC got? Seven figures?
very disappointing to those who loved the story
very bad news for ATL
good news for charney
and good news for S&C - I figure this story must have been killing their recruiting - easily worth a half a million to a million to put it to bed
Charney had a pretty big legal team. How will the three firms carve up the fees? I wonder how much Charney will take home from this.
@ 1:02 --
West coast, bro! Not every thing happens in Jersey.
A Former (West Coast) Fan
How much? How much? How much? How much?
How much?
I'm guessing $500k.
thank God- so tired of Lat pimping this frivolous case.
It is unsurprising, of course, that a left-wing law firm that represents terrorists detained in Guantanamo would do what is politically expedient rather than what is morally right (i.e., fighting this frivolous case through the end). Still, one would have thought that S&C would have given more weight to associate morale in their cost-benefit analysis. Let us not forget that Charney stole confidential information from the neighborhing partner's office, divulged this confidential information to the Wall Street Journal, and lied under oath by concocting up an absurd story on how the confidential information was mysteriously delivered to his home address by an anonymous supporter. What does it say to current hardworking M&A S&C associates who are billing 2,500+ hours yearly that Charney is worthy of greater financial rewards than they are?
NOOOOO!!!!! This was ATL's raison d’état!!!
ATL to 190!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
WHITE GIRLS WITH ASIAN GUYS! WGWAG!
Did Lat just make a move on the Charney?
I actually don't think he got a whole lot... I also heard (directly from the Man :)) that S&C was considering a Morgan Stanley (or was that something else?) type settlement, whereby he would get zilch and an organization of his choice (e.g. ACLU) would get the settlement... No idea what happened in the end though.
5:35: S&C actually asked a few associates whether they thought it would hurt morale if the firm settled...
Hey, Fed Soc. Go beat off to your picture of Ann Coulter.
Why is everyone proclaiming the decline and imminent fall of Above the Law? A slow week in BigLaw news, and all y'all are running around, crying and gnashing your teeth like Al Gore on a hot day.
And where does Charney get his eyebrows done? That is a look that I just must have this winter! She is just de trop, that girl!
Since Charney's legal career is now over, when will he start his legal tabloid blog?
Bend over and pick up your settlement check. Because you like that, right?
I doubt "Fed Soc" is a real fedsoc member...
8:47 - because this is ATL.
If the sky is not falling then there is nothing to write about.
ATL is so 2006!
NY to 190!
Layoffs!
WGWAG!
8:47 - because this is ATL.
If the sky is not falling then there is nothing to write about.
ATL is so 2006!
NY to 190!
Layoffs!
WGWAG!
Isn't all this reference to assfucking all rather pitifully retro? Enough with the feeble attempts at humor through gaybaiting. If this were a racial discrimination case that settled, would you make some crack about the black plaintiff saying "Thank you, massa!"?
someone leak the settlement info!!!!!
"I wonder how much Charney will take home from this."
Under 200K, would be my guess.
This was not an especially credible claim, and they guy destroyed evidence and had a implausible explaination.
And S&C has such a gay friendly reputation the head of the NY gay-lesbian whatever had to resign for immediately supporting S&C the day the story broke.
But the case was a distraction and did have some nusance value.
I guess it was a cost of defense type thing.
I haven't cared enough about this case to figure out what the claims were, but if Charney was proceeding under federal law, his damages would be capped at $300,000 and I'm sure S&C wouldn't have gone too high above the cap. I don't know about New York laws though. Does N.Y. have a statutory cap on employment discrimination damages?
8:28: And are you telling me the associates felt that it would NOT hurt morale? Seems to me their decision shows S&C cares more about recruiting/future associates than current associates.
DKH -
I think if a partner were alleged in a racial discrimination case to have told a black associate to say "Thank you, massa" when getting an assignment, then, yes, I think you would see a crack about it on here. That post (not by me) was a paraphrase of the complaint.
This wouldn't hurt my morale. If it were my firm I would want everyone to be able to get a fat check when leaving by saying that they though the partner next door ogled them. Then it could become liek a standard severance package. Mmmmm . . . severance package.
Seems to me their decision shows S&C cares more about recruiting/future associates than current associates.
Of course they do- At the rate of attrition they have to keep their eye on filling constant associate vacancies.. Only people missing part of their frontal lobe will stay more than 3 or 4 years
ARC got $645K and an offer to return to S&C
Isn't all this reference to assfucking all rather pitifully retro? Enough with the feeble attempts at humor through gaybaiting. If this were a racial discrimination case that settled, would you make some crack about the black plaintiff saying "Thank you, massa!"?
Posted by: DKH | October 26, 2007 09:47 AM
__________________________________
Actually, the knee-jerk gay evocation of "if this involved black people" is even more pitiful. It doesn't involve a black plaintiff; it involves a gay plaintiff, and if it involved a black plaintiff, you would be the first one in line with a yes massa "joke," just as you were this time. Spare us the bullshit.
9:47: You are familiar with the specific allegations in this particular lawsuit, right?
Anal sex references are not just a generic reaction to a case involving a gay plaintiff - they are case-specific. The central allegation made by Charney involved a partner telling him to "bend over."
Charney looks great.
Oh, 10:36, spare ME the bullshit. You don't know me, so don't tell me what I would do in any circumstance.
I'm just saying that there is very little reluctance to refer to Brokeback Mountain, bending over, "don't drop the soap in the shower," limp wrists, etc. whenever the topic is gay men. I've read the allegations in the case; it just seems sophomoric to make endless gay jokes. Very New York Post.
I LOVE the New York Post. Best value in the city.
DKH, your cluelessness is astounding. Word of advice: Have some idea about what you're criticizing before going off on a PC tirade. You're just making yourself look more imbecilic with each post. Even *after* someone tries to clue you in. Sad.
DKH: If Lat is (1) gay himself and (2) running a self-described "legal tabloid" (like an online New York Post for the law), does that change your view?
This blog is supposed to be tasteless and sophomoric. It has never pretended to be the New York Times.
If you want high-minded coverage of the legal profession, there are other places you can go.
"his damages would be capped at $300,000"
I thought that was just for punitives, and didn't include lost wages, and attorney's fees?/
12:02 - $300K compensatory cap is only if the United States is the defendant.
Plaintiff can recover compensatory and punitive damages for based on the size of the employer -- with larger companies subject to greater liability.
No punitives against the government.
"I haven't cared enough about this case to figure out what the claims were, but if Charney was proceeding under federal law, his damages would be capped at $300,000...."
He is NOT proceeding under federal law. This is a lawsuit filed in state court, raising claims under New York state and city law.
the 300,000 guy is such a dumbass, because there is no federal anti-gay discrim law.
Touchy touchy people (no pun intended). The guy simply said *if* ABC was proceeding under federal law following a fairly obvious disclaimer that he didn't know what theories ABC was actually asserting and whether damages were capped under those theories.
And the $300k cap does not only apply to the United States. 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b).
12:44 "the 300,000 guy is such a dumbass, because there is no federal anti-gay discrim law."
Any lawyer worth his salt can style a sexual orientation discrimination claim as a gender identity discrimination claim and argue it as discrimination based on sex under Title VII. You're not going to win, but that doesn't mean you can't argue it.
Fed Soc, you are an asshat.