Yeah, he's just another misunderstood nice guy who for some reason comes across as a TOTAL ASSH@LE. Sure.

You know why this guy think's he great? He didn't work for him. Nice guy outside of work, TOTAL ASSH@LE at work just isn't acceptable.

Field Marshal diBlasi sounds great too, doing all that token Legal Aid work, smiling a lot, and being a good buddy to all, except when he is being a TOTAL ASSH@LE, quoting Nazi service with admiration, etc...

Give me a break you apologist biglaw wannabees.

Gallion OUT!

I now officially hate Gallion's comments more than Loyola2L's. Who would have thunk it?

I sorry but there is something wrong and hypocritical about this scenario where partners are allowed to crap all over you and say whatever they want and as an associate you are just supposed to accept it or leave if you do not like it.

I am also amazed by the hypocrisy of all these liberal lawyers who profess to care about all these good causes and worker rights until it comes to their own employees.

While I believe Krautheimer was an equal opportunity offender and not a homophobe, this brings up the larger question of treatment of associates at biglaw, something which unfortunately will not be addressed by this case. I suspect the result of this case will be to just cause more political correctness in the office (which I hate) but not deal with the root cause of the problem, partners getting to treat employees in an inhumane way.

This is the type of incident which makes me want to bypass biglaw or leave after a year.

saying "bend over, I bet you like that" to a gay man is similar to saying "here's some watermelon, I bet you like that" to an African-American

Still, it should be just as inappropriate to call a straight subordinate a "stupid cocksucker" as it is to make the same comment to a homosexual employee. The issue is abusive treatment, not discrimination.

Still, it should be just as inappropriate to call a straight subordinate a "stupid cocksucker" as it is to make the same comment to a homosexual employee. The issue is abusive treatment, not discrimination.

2:46 - absolutely right
2:48 - absolutely right
2:42 - reality hurts, doesn't it?

there are no such things as part-time assh@les. You either are one, or you aren't. If you think its ok to be a part-time assh@le (to people who must take it, no less), you are a full time assh@le. Simple as that.

Gallion, as usual, OUT!

"I would be amazed if anyone thought this a coddling environment. And if a guy like Krautheimer wants to make a bathroom joke (i.e., "probably some sh-t still on this") to blow off steam or amuse himself once in a while, no harm, no foul. If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen, or work a "quality of life" legal job."

Umm... except that I don't think that is what S&C is saying. They're saying that those things didn't happen and it isn't ok for such things to happen at S&C. If S&C told incoming associates that they will have to tolerate partners' verbal abuses and if they can't hack it, go somewhere else, and people still chose to go to S&C and complained after such things happened to them, then there wouldn't be a case. But then S&C is purporting that such behavior alleged of Krautheimer is not tolerated at S&C, aren't they?

2:57 - yes, that is exactly what they are saying. they are in denial about it all (except of course, all that pretigious Nazi work that , unfortunately, has dried up of late).

Funny thing is that every single lawyer i have ever known has known full well that S&C is full of assh@les and treats their associates like legendary sh@t. A lot of the S&C deal guys are proud of it, a kind of survival of the fittest ritual. This is in no way, shape, or form a secret; it is common knowledge. That makes the denials all the more hilarious and offensive.

yall nee chill

stix and stonz nigga charnee

No wat I sain??

charNEE

TEAM AARON!!!!!!

if one is a part-time asshole, one is, by default, also a full-time asshole.

indeed, assholery is self-defining. it is not a matter for qualification. it is merely existential, like eye color. one might have brown eyes but wear contact lenses to make them appear blue. however, notwithstanding the contact lenses, one's eyes continue to be brown.

so it is with assholery. one simply is or is not an asshole. whether one behaves as such all day, or only part of the day does not decide the issue. (in fact, it is strong evidence of grand assholery for one to spend the workday as a tyrannical misanthrope, lording over less powerful subordinates, only to pretty up in the evening while in the company of one's preferred social milieu.)

erik’s apologist simply fails to understand the nature of being an asshole and i am unmoved by his comments. further, i dare say that to undertake to defend erik’s loathsome behavior on the basis of nothing more than (unreliable) recollections of a long-stale relationship signals that the apologist himself likely shares our erik’s scurrilous character trait.

I thought ALL lawyers were gay?????????

I thought ALL lawyers were gay?????????

I thought ALL lawyers were gay?????????

I thought ALL lawyers were gay?????????

3:17 I love you

Being an asshole is not unlawful discrimination. The courts should not be used as Charney's personal human resources department.

To 2:57: "If S&C told incoming associates that they will have to tolerate partners' verbal abuses and if they can't hack it, go somewhere else, and people still chose to go to S&C and complained after such things happened to them, then there wouldn't be a case."

New York is an employment at will state - so in essence - associates *are* told that they may endure verbal abuse and if they can't hack it they can go somewhere else. One homophobic remark is not a hostile work environment based on anti-gay animus. That's why there is no case.

Krautheimer may be an asshole and he may "not suffer fools or mistakes lightly" but neither is a violation of the law. Charney just cannot accept the consequences of his own actions of hiding behind closed doors and cutting himself off of his own group.

Even assuming everything ABC alleged is true I just don't see a cause of action. Also, ABC clearly was not thinking strategically and was driven by his hurt feelings given that he could have had a nice little settlement and an easy lateral move (4th M&A associate at S&C; GS is major client of S&C).

Posts like 3:24 make me think that Charney is not after the $. Maybe he really feels he was wronged and wants to see this through.

Sometimes you can be really angry, appear irrational, and still be right.

Snark, being angry and being an asshole are quite different states.

TEAM AARON!

I disagree with 4:03. First, Charney may feel "wronged," but being "wronged" is not actionable unless it violates some law.

Second, Charney is out to get S&C any way he can. If Charney's motive here is just to combat perceived homophobia, he would have simply sued, maybe given some interviews. he would not have sent stolen client documents to the Wall Street Journal (whether or not he was the one who stole the documents (and it's hard to believe it wasn't him)). How is sending those documents to the Wall Street Journal supposed to have helped him combat what he perceived as homophobia at S&C.

And you don't think S&C is out to get Charney? I think they are. I think these two sides are going to wage war no matter what the cost.

Agreed that both sides are waging war. But I don't think 4:20 said that S&C isn't out to get Charney - the point, as I saw it, was a counter to the portrayal that Charney isn't in it for the money or at least doesn't have questionable motives.

Charney had options after feeling "wronged" or that S&C discriminated against him based on sexual orientation. He could have sued and given interviews. Secretly sending those stolen documents to the press doesn't seem to further his case and counters the image of Charney as some stand-up guy just trying to combat alleged homophobia at work.

Ok, I'm lame. But I thought this dude's defense of his friend Eric Krautheimer was sort of touching. I wouldn't want to work for Krautheimer, but I wouldn't want Charney working for me either. That said, the posting did present a decent side of Krautheimer.

That's the best defense of Krautheimer available? A person who admits that he doesn't even really know Krautheimer anymore states that from what he can recall, Krautheimer was once a sort of okay guy. Pathetic.

Two douches.

5:00 -- it's nice to know there's a decent side to as assh@le? Again, there are no part-time assh@les. People who think it is ok to be "decent" to their friends sometimes assh@les to their employees other times are just plain assh@les. It really isn't complicated. I don't care how sweet this jagoff is with his buddies on the golf course in Rye, NY or the how polite he is to the help at his club. It he is an assh@ole to the people he depends on to do his work, he is just an assh@le.

When did people develop the mentality that someone deserves "credit" for being decent part of the time??? That's like saying someone deserves credit for not killing someone else. DECENCY IS EXPECTED AND IS NOT AN "ACCOMPLISHMENT."

Gallion, in perpetuity, OUT!

I won't charge you for this piece of logical reasoning..it's pro boner..

In prison it's perfectly normal to say bend over to someone else.
Working at S&C is like being in prison.
Therefore, it's perfectly normal to say bend over at S&C.

Here's the thing, 2:48 ... it's similar, if and only if you know - or suspect, even - that the person to whom you're saying "bend over ..." is gay. As you likely know, it is usually easier to determine if a person is black than if a person is gay.

Obviously, there are exceptions, such as Michael Jackson - it's hard to tell if he's black. But sometimes, it's really easy to tell, like Michael Jordan. He's black. An analogue on the gay/not-gay side is figure skater Johnny Weir. He's pretty gay. Compare Zach Fasman. Not gay, and he can impregnate a woman just by looking at her. In fact, that's where Jesus came from.

If this is still confusing, I refer you to this op/ed piece from The Onion.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34052

Hopefully, this will help. If we're really lucky, it will even help Gallion (aka Loyola 2L v2.0).

Since when is being an asshole either full or part time and actionable offense.

and that is why if S&C just focused on that in its motion to dismiss, as opposed to some crazy breach of fiduciary duty claim this case would be over..

Charney is not suing Krautheimer for being an asshole, 7:23. He's suing S&C for allowing Krautheimer (and others) to unlawfully discriminate against him. There is a difference, and had you gone to law school (or paid attention while you were there) you would be able to recognize it.

Krautheimer is basically irrelevant to ABC's claim other than to titilate because the actionable offenses, if true, occured after Krautheimer's alleged comments. See the allegations on pages 14 -21 of the ABC complaint.

You could not be more wrong.
Krautheimer is not "basically irrelevant" to Charney's claims against S&C. Indeed, the factual predicate for the Charney’s claims expressly INCLUDE Krautheimer's alleged comments. See Charney Complaint at paragraphs 10-12, 146, 149, 153.
The first step is to read the Complaint correctly. I hope someday I get to litigate serious claims against you.

You could not be more wrong, anon12:22.

Krautheimer is not "basically irrelevant" to Charney's claims against S&C. Indeed, the factual predicates for Charney’s claims expressly INCLUDE Krautheimer's alleged comments. See Charney Complaint at paragraphs 10-12, 146, 149, 153.

The first step is to read the Complaint correctly.

While Krautheimer's statements basically set this whole mess into motion ABC doesn't have a cause of action just because of those statements, he only possibly has a cause of action based on the events that occured after he complained. Assuming Krautheimer did make the statements knowing ABC was gay it would not have amounted to anything if S&C did something about it.

WHO REALLY CARES??????? Get back to billing hours...

Wrong again.

To be sure, the second count of Charney's Complaint alleges a claim for retaliation. However, the first count asserts a direct discrimination claim against the S&C partnership and includes Krautheimer's alleged comments as a factual basis.

Thus, the notion that "Krautheimer is basically irrelevant" to Charney's claims is wrong. Further, I doubt any lawyer would dispute the assertion that "[Charney] doesn't have a cause of action just because of [Krautheimer's] statements." Yet, a cursory reading of Charney's Complaint belies the idea that "he only possibly has a cause of action based on the events that occured after he complained."

See for yourself.

www.aaroncharney.com/complaint.pdf

I'm not saying that ABC doesn't have a cause of action, I'm saying that he doesn't have a cause of action solely because of Krautheimer. Read the NYC Human Rights Law, specifcally section 8-107(13)(d). Basically, it is S&C and not Krautheimer that matters. If S&C responded in a different manner what cause of action would ABC have?

"I'm not saying that ABC doesn't have a cause of action, I'm saying that he doesn't have a cause of action solely because of Krautheimer."
==========

Of course he doesn't. As a matter of law, a single instance of discriminatory behavior (that is not especially outrageous or egregous) will never support a successful discrimination claim.

But that is what I said: "I doubt any lawyer would dispute the assertion that "[Charney] doesn't have a cause of action just because of [Krautheimer's] statements."