I think David is ignoring the key issue here: finally, a well-written pro se complaint.

I am not shocked but it still is very sad that this law firm seems to think it is above the law. Poor guy.

S&C is the gayest law firm ever.

sidebar: is it me, or did his waxer go a little over the top with his eyebrows?

What a conundrum for the Colbert crowd! For S&C because it's anti-gay or against S&C because it's pro-terrorist?!? My head hurts.

Is S&C gayer than Paul Weiss?

http://www.abovethelaw.com/2006/10/interview_horror_stories_and_t_1.php

See esp. comment #4 (4:40 PM).

S&C isn't gay. When I interviewed there I requested to meet with openly gay attorneys and ended up having lunch with a very nice lesbian who told me there were only a handful of gays there. That was part of the reason I decided to go elsewhere.

I hear that Cleary Gottlieb and Morrison & Foerster are good firms for openly gay lawyers.

With eyebrows like that, you know he's a gay man.

I'm an openly gay attorney at Sullivan and have not had any problems what so ever. Thus far everyone has been open and accepting of my partner.

Why do most of the comments here seem to assume that he was actually harassed or that his allegations are true or not beefed up to shame S&C into a settlement? One unacceptable comment from a superior doesn’t make systematic and widespread harassment, one of his complaints was that S&C suggested he transfer to a different office within the firm that doesn’t strike me as harassment, or to have another openly gay attorney say “look at me I’m not harassed” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a ploy to fabricate a defense, it is a defense it shows that the problem is not systemic in S&C its one person there that needs to be firmly shown there are boundaries.

Also Charney was being foolish, screwing other associates at the same firm, gay or straight, is always a bad idea, it makes people talk but that doesn’t mean it’s harassment. I think this kid is trying to hold up an image-conscious, ranking-obsessed firm for a big settlement.

"S&C isn't gay. When I interviewed there I requested to meet with openly gay attorneys and ended up having lunch with a very nice lesbian who told me there were only a handful of gays there. That was part of the reason I decided to go elsewhere."

You don't know what you're talking about. I can think of 7 gay PARTNERS at S&C just off the top of my head, and I'm not including the newly minted one. It's not as gay as Fire Island, but it's pretty gay for a Wall Street law firm.

I think it's a little messed-up to receive a PRO SE legal complaint over email from an ax-grinder who apparently sent it to every news site in the nation, post it to your website minutes later "without having read the whole thing," and introduce it with a blurb that "gay law students thinking of S&C should read this."

I mean, this isn't an EEOC report. What besides a filing fee lies between this and the run-of-the-mill ravings of a complete lunatic? Your comment takes this out of the realm of gossip and into the realm of "I hereby give this document the stamp of legitimacy by advising students to read it."

Law students aren't necessarily going to recognize the document for what it is-- the opinion, whether sincerely held or not, of ONE PERSON.

I can see posting it. But editorializing without having read it is another matter.

junior associate at S&C here. krautheimer is a dick. it wouldn't surprise me if he actually did make those comments to charney. but that doesn't mean charney was singled out for being gay. krautheimer treats everyone at S&C, gay or straight, with the utmost disrespect. he's an asshole. i'm glad that's finally starting to catch up to him.

o'brien is the one of the nicest guys i've ever met. honest and straightforward too. there's no way he would engage in any retaliatory action against charney or anyone else. which probably explains why the claim against o'brien is so convoluted.

this whole situation seems rather simple. krautheimer is an asshole who said some stupid things, and charney is an opportunist who saw a way to make some money from that. since charney can't win much money by just showing S&C hired one asshole partner, he's gone a step further and made up a story about a firm-wide conspiracy.

i feel for charney. i hate krautheimer too. but it's not right for charney to lie and drag everyone else's name in the mud just to bolster his case.

Hmm, Charney v. this Krautheimer character, Ty v. Shanetta...

Maybe being a total douchebag/bagetta to underlings DOESN'T pay after all in the age of the internets.

Secretly taping your superiors plus being pro se plus emailing your homecrafted complaint to a variety of newssites before you've served it plus giving INTERVIEWS about it the same day equals "crazy as a bag of cats" in my view.

so if this guy charney is still working on big deals for sullcrom, how does he have time to litigate his own case? sullcrom should staff him on a dozen deals and simultaneously bury him in discovery requests.

Are you kidding me? They're not going to let him near anything interesting or confidential and they are going to bury this as quickly as possible. It'll be gone by tomorrow.

It will be interesting to see. S&C says that they investigated and based on that decided to deny his settlement demand. It's been seven months since he complained to S&C management, they couldn't fire him b/c it would be retaliation per se, and he has to keep doing his job so that they can't allege poor performance - it's got to be uncomfortable for both sides. This seems like a move to force the firm's hand (and of course, to out The Kraut as an asshole) - either they will pay him to go away or if they have good enough facts, they may fight it in order to keep the allegations from damaging their recruitment. But either way, I have to think Charney has no chance at any other BigLaw place or even big corporate in-house positions after today.

7:02 PM: I think the short blurb that "gay law students thinking of S&C should read this" is perfectly fine.

First, Lat's not saying "these allegations are true," just that "you should be aware of them."

Second, if you're a gay lawyer and do decide to go to S&C - which is probably no better or worse a place for gays than another big firms - you might want to avoid working with Eric Krautheimer (who sounds like a total prick).

Obviously, many of you just seem to pick sides depending upon whether you are pro big firm or anti. The idea that someone needed an excuse to squeeze this guy out if they desired is insane. Firms don't make excuses to move you out. They just decide that you are not as smart as they are and tell you to look for a job elsewhere. I should know -- I've gotten some of those reviews from S&C partners

It is indeed shocking that Charney seems to have been getting along smashingly for two years and then was rained with homophobic comments as soon as the bad reviews came along, and then he stayed for two more years.

Also, the facts should be clear. Charney for some reason picked two categories that are S&C strong points: gay and Canadian lawyers. More than a dozen of their partners are openly gay -- if you are keeping score at home, that is about 10%. Compare that with any professional firm in any professional business. And, they have several dozen Canadian lawyers. If they are bent on discrimination, they are doing it badly.

It's a bunch of crap.

Sounds like he may have a drug problem. That's why he has "started" taking various medicines for various ailments.

I was a corporate associate at S&C for five years. After reading the complaint, I must say Charney doesn't allege any indignities that haven't been visited on thousands of associates that go through the big firm mill. Give me a break - he goes crying because somebody left him off the list of summer associate mentors?

I agree Krautheimer and Korry, etc. are jerks (as is 99% of the partnership), but last time I checked, that wasn't illegal.

There is a difference between legal and illegal harrassment. Yes, it is legal to "harrass" if it is not based on a protected category. That doesn't mean people should have to accept it. Moreover, when harrassment is accompanied by targeted remarks about a person's race, sex, sexual orientation, etc., then it should not be tolerated. And unless you've actually been in Charney's shoes, you can't really compare the harrassment he alleges to have suffered to the harrassment you may have faced as an S&C associate. They could be worlds apart.

Any organization can be made to look bad if one compiles the worst comments made at the worst time by its worst offenders and/or takes their words out of context. Alot of water goes under the dam in daily life. If S&C has 12 openly gay partners, it seems unlikely that it discriminates against gay persons. I have little doubt that a few of its partners are sometimes not as smooth or polite as they should be, but I suspect that is true of any organization, legal or otherwise.

actually you know it could be true

actually you know it could be true

What is the relevance of another gay attorney at S&C saying that the firm treats gay people just fine?

Charney had a different experience with several, specific individuals. That is what is relevant - not what some other person thinks or what their experience might be like.

S&C is making itself look worse by having other gay attorneys try to cloud the issue.

It will not work.

Charney's Complaint rings true.

Can you imagine how unpleasant it would be to have to work in that environment under those circumstances? It would be impossible.

What is the relevance of another gay attorney at S&C saying that the firm treats gay people just fine?

Charney had a different experience with several, specific individuals. That is what is relevant - not what some other person thinks or what their experience might be like.

S&C is making itself look worse by having other gay attorneys try to cloud the issue.

It will not work.

Charney's Complaint rings true.

Can you imagine how unpleasant it would be to have to work in that environment under those circumstances? It would be impossible.

johnny utah,

They told him not to come into the office until the matter is resolved.

Besides, if he were still in the office and they tried to pull a stunt like overloading him with work and then manipulating a review - he would have another retaliation claim.

"What is the relevance of another gay attorney at S&C saying that the firm treats gay people just fine?"

- - -

Goes to the question of, is S&C (or its individual members) acting out of some systemic anti-gay bias, or is this just one guy who happens to be a member of a protected class and got treated poorly. If other gay associates are treated well, that would seem to be relevant discussion pertaining to the central issue here.

"What is the relevance of another gay attorney at S&C saying that the firm treats gay people just fine?"

- - -

Goes to the question of, is S&C (or its individual members) acting out of some systemic anti-gay bias, or is this just one guy who happens to be a member of a protected class and got treated poorly. If other gay associates are treated well, that would seem to be relevant discussion pertaining to the central issue here.

bobby_b,

What does systematic, firm-wide bias have to do with anything?

What is relevant is the way this attorney was treated by the small group of attorneys he worked with everyday.

booby_b,

PS

And the fact that he repeatly complained to management about it and nothing was done - except - they allegedly set him up to appear as a liar.

This complaint is about this attorney and specific other attorneys he worked with.

The Aaron Charney vs. Sullivan & Cromwell case confirms that a long-time arrogant culture of discrimination at the firm just refuses to die.

When I was a graduate student at Yale in 1969, I was friendly with Joanne B. Stern (d.2002 - former professor at Whittier College School of Law and an expert in healthcare law), who was one of the handful of female students in the Yale Law School in those days. When time came to interview for a summer clerkship, Joanne and a few of her female colleagues, noted that Sullivan and Cromwell was holding a reception for interviewees at Morey's, which did not admit women to its premises. The women noted that this gave an advantage to the male applicants and was discriminatory. Under duress, Sullivan & Cromwell said it was too late to change the venue for the reception, but to even the playing field, their team would take the women applicants out to dinner after the reception. According to Joanne, whom I knew as an individual of strong integrity, the Sullivan & Cromwell partners had obviously had several drinks at the reception and were "feeling no pain" at the dinner. The partner sitting next to Joanne said something to the effect that he could not understand why a woman should study law - that she should be majoring in art history like his daughter. He then added that as long as he was a partner, Sullivan & Cromwell would never admit a woman. Joanne took this story to the New York Times, which reported it. The embarrassed partner in question was quoted as saying "I didn't mean that we wouldn't admit any woman - I meant we wouldn't admit that woman." And to save face, Sullivan & Cromwell invited one of Joanne's classmates, whose father was conveniently Sullivan Professor of Law at Harvard to their summer program.

Why am I not surprised that Sullivan & Cromwell has moved on to gay bashing?

Ahem. Someone must have tipped ABC off that state court judges love it, just absolutely love it, when Biglaw snots ignore state pleading rules and conventions and draft the complaint as if for filing in federal court. They also love irrelevant filler, useless attachments, and all such other niceties. And when it comes to court conferences, nothing will put a state court judge in a swoon faster than a long tirade about how as a Biglaw person, you are more used to practicing in federal court, anyway -- away from the common palookas. Anyway, I wonder why ABC did not sue under Title VII over at 500 Pearl. That would seem to be the logical choice for an employment discrimination plaintiff. In fact, I wonder why, apparently, the lawsuit is brought only under NYC law. (Could it be that ABC knows about as much about litigation and employment discrimination law as this litigator about M&A? Did his *real* lawyers amend the pleadings once they were hired?) Anyway, I hope ABC gets to try his case in front of Gammerman. (If ABC wasn't gay, I'd add that old Gam would really set 'im straight, but alas, I don't want to be misunderstood.)

Q: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One; the lawyer holds it while the rest of the world revolves around him.

Q: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One; the lawyer holds it while the rest of the world revolves around him.

the trademark company

The Trademark Company