first

first

I heard that sexually harassed associates at Cravath are getting $2m. Memo will come out this afternoon.

So, every time associates at S&C bend over at the office and enjoy it they get a special bonus? Cash or sexual.

I don't get the Rosemary's reference. And yes, I clicked on the link...

As a gay associate at a top firm I found that whole case interesting. I think the most telling part were not the facts of the case per se but rather that Lambda Legal refused to represent Aaron. That is very telling. If my memory is correct - Lambda used the excuse that it was a "conflict of interest" since S&C is a donor to Lambda. Well, I imagine the top 50-100 law firms all donate to Lamda as its the "right thing to do" these days and Lamda could have given the money back or got a conflicts waiver if it was a solid case for the movement. Since Lamda didn't have Aaron's back on this case... as a gay attorney... my only conclusion is this case was a total mess from both sides with very little merit to sink one's teeth into. I highly doubt S&C paid Aaron a ton of money - enough to retire. He probably walked away with one year's salary maybe two - at most. That is not much for a young queen who potentially destroyed any chance of working in another law firm. That is just my take on it all.

The "special bonus" comes when you drop your soap in the shower.

parlor game? you kidding me? do people really care how much they paid that theiving homosexual to take a hike?

1-2 million bucks

Since Lamda didn't have Aaron's back on this case ... my only conclusion is this case was a total mess from both sides with very little merit to sink one's teeth into.
__________________________________

This was my take too, especially when I found out he was representing himself pro bono initially. They settled to avoid public messiness, but I doubt if someone like Aaron Charney would be set for life.

11:34 ... he was representing himself pro bono ... really? i think you were looking for pro se

too many ttt students post on this site

It's pro se, not pro bono. Otherwise, how could someone represent themselves pro bono in a personal injury case?

Granted, it is awfully considerate of himself to not charge -- himself.

As a gay associate at a top firm I found that whole case interesting. I think the most telling part were not the facts of the case per se but rather that Lambda Legal refused to represent Aaron. That is very telling. If my memory is correct - Lambda used the excuse that it was a "conflict of interest" since S&C is a donor to Lambda. Well, I imagine the top 50-100 law firms all donate to Lamda as its the "right thing to do" these days and Lamda could have given the money back or got a conflicts waiver if it was a solid case for the movement. Since Lamda didn't have Aaron's back on this case... as a gay attorney... my only conclusion is this case was a total mess from both sides with very little merit to sink one's teeth into.

Posted by: Miss Ann E. Mous | November 7, 2007 11:00 AM

You misunderstand Lambda Legal's role: They do impact litigation, not legal services. (They are not "every gay's lawyer.") This means that they file high profile cases in order to break new ground in an area a particular area of law affecting gays and lesbians.

Charney's case was high profile, but it was a standard issue sexual orientation, employment discrimation case in New York, and it presented no new issues of workplace/sexual orientation discrimination. That is likely why Lambda Legal did not take on the case.

This is not to say that Lambda is not responsive to their funding base, as I'm sure would have been a consideration if they had been interested in the case to begin with.

11:34, you are a fuckup of monstrous proportions. Please get back to your high-stakes ($10-15k) insurance defense work. State Farm needs you.

Dumbass douche.

11:34 makes $45k a year working 2200 hours in an ID mill. Nice!

"parlor game? you kidding me?"

Part of Lat's marketing strategy is to create faux "trends."

Step 1: write a blog entry
Step 2: write a column for the NY Observer claiming that "everyone's talking about" the topic of Step 1.
Step 3: ?
Step 4: profit

This case makes no sense. AC obviously was pissed enough to bring the lawsuit against S&C, but the merits are obviously questionable. It sounds like he was subject to a few nasty comments, but nothing more.

If the settlement was only a few years of salary, unless AC is a trust fund kid he may be pretty much done in the world of big firms.

I suspect Lat's initial figure of $500,000 for Charney is closer to the mark than the various enhancements he suggested would raise that figure. Destroying the hard drive made Charney's case somewhat problematic at best. The more interesting question is whether Charney's attorneys get anything additional from the settlement.

Wasn't Loyola 2L promoting the $500,000 + "get on with your life package" settlement from the start of the case?

FYI this case settled because those "refirmation" people (the Stanford grads who complain about their biglaw jobs) published that diversity ranking, which placed S&C as the most gay-friendly biglaw firm in the country.

That had to have hurt Charney's case.

Poor Charney. I think most of the comments on this board have it wrong. Charney was the hapless victim of abuse and then got torn apart by people for not accepting that abuse. I don’t think I’m alone in this sentiment, and I think he will do just fine in the world. Some of you people are just nasty, making fun of him b/c he's gay.

LOL@"Charney was the hapless victim of abuse"

1:13 - I think some people are also being nasty to Charney because they're maybe a bit jealous, and very insecure about the fact that Charney *might* have made a lot of money on this. They make themselves feel better by saying things like "oh, its not worth it, he'll never be able to work in a big firm again." HA. Face it guys - if someone offered you only 300K to give up the big firm life, you'd take it and go "find yourself"

Isn't truth a defense? Couldn't S&C have tried to prove that Charney did actually enjoy bending over. Seems plausible. Then, what's the harm in being told the truth?

You're thinking of defamation. I don't think truth is a defense to anything else.

"But your honor it's the truth - she really was cheating on me so I had to kill her."

"Face it guys - if someone offered you only 300K to give up the big firm life, you'd take it and go 'find yourself'"

Why would someone take the equivalent of a year's salary in exchange for any possibility of earning that same level of income in the same capacity again? This guy wasn't some crusading public interest lawyer--he worked at S&C for crissakes. He was just another money-grubbing associate, and now it's over. Nobody envies him that.

1:50 - dunno if your question was serious - but if it was - here's an answer.

S&C could use truth as a defense only to the following extremely limited fact-specific scenario - S&C could try to prove that Charney himself didn't find the alleged harassment of supposedly being told to bend over subjectively offensive. For example, if Charney was running around the office telling everybody he loved to bend over and didn't mind it if other folks told him to bend over, then S&C would have a defense. They would claim that the harassment Charney is complaining about wasn't subjectively offensive (harassment must be both objectively and subjectively offensive - as well as severe or pervasive)

However, an employer being able to prove that an employee didn't really find the alleged harassment that he/she is suing over objectionable is very difficult - plus the facts that we know of this case don't seem to suggest Charney wasn't offended by the alleged remark.

Otherwise, the fact that a stereotype may be true in a particular case is not a defense to alleged harassment.

S&C's better defense was that even if someone told Charney to bend over, he only heard one or two stray remarks and therefore the alleged harassment wasn't severe or pervasive enough to be actionable.

Just because he's gay doesn't mean he likes to bend over. Maybe he's a top.

3:01
That was one of the worst analogies I have read in a long time. I am sure your 140 LSAT score really impressed.

I am a gay white lawyer in South Africa. I enjoyed the case. Working in a very conservative law environment is not enjoyable at all (not even with gay unions legalized over here). I do believe however that Charney should have made it less about himself and took a more general perspective. Instead of being a mater, he opted for celebrity status. So sad actually. As they say: there is nothing like bad publicity. Hopefully the true victory is in the scare. The fear of being embarrased

Homosexuality is immoral!

I think Loyola 2L's prediction of $500k was right on.