Good post lover. I can't wait for tonight. I'm gonna bang you so hard you'll fart silently for months.

chipmunk ramps to strict scrutiny!

Bernstein should worry less about blogs and work on his teaching skills.

Christ, who fucking cares? It's not like anyone would know any differently if you showed up and you weren't gay; there's not a big stamp on your forehead or anything.

I don't see a problem. Then again, I'm trying to get my firm to open a bath house.

We were going to throw this party years ago until we realized Lat would have been the only one to show up.

Gee, I'm sure if you're a straight person who really wanted to go, they would let you...but short of fag hags, I don't see who would...

Although I don't think this is a big deal, the email should have specified that non-gays could come, too. That's what my firm does when it has events for the gays.

Latty boy - it is actually:

"Guys in my high school used to throw gay parties all the time, 'TWAS no big deal."

Can I beg a comment from Frat Lothario on this one? Pleeeeze?

I doubt Lat would have gone to a gay event at Wachtell. He wouldn't want all his FedSoc friends finding out.

The Heterosexual Subcommittee of the Firmwide Homogeny Committee cordially invites All Chicago Heterosexual Attorneys and Staff to a Winter Cocktail and Hors d’Ouevres Reception Today, Thursday, January 17, 2008 Sidebar Grille.
221 N. LaSalle
Chicago
5:00 P.M. — 7:00 P.M.

DISCRIMINATION!

I LOVE ME SOME LAT. WHAT A CUTIE!

Now you're citing Bernstein? Was Althouse too moderate for you?

Law firms do this stuff frequently; my old firm used to have womens' lunches once a month. I don't have a huge problem with it, but it is a little annoying when it's obvious that a firm would get raked over the coals if it ever dared to have a Straight White Guys cocktail party.

Frat Lothario?????

Frat Stud gets a Lat call-out. Nice!

Your firm has a "Straight White Guys cocktail party" it's called every Friday of the year.

I'm in love with that bear from Duplicating. I just don't know how to tell him...

2:35, that's probably because corporate America IS a Straight White Guys cocktail party. And that, too, is a "little annoying" to those of us who are not straight, not white, and not male.

Did the entire firm get the invite?

Were hetrosexual's allowed to attend if they ponied up the entry fee?

Then I see no discrimination.

(The invite could have been more inclusive.)

The cake-eating gentlemen at my preparatory academy frequently would entertain one another in a manner exclusive of those who preferred more traditional pursuits. It was not a conspicuous event.

Slow news day, eh Lat?

2:40/2:41,

Very clever responses, except they're quite clearly not true, are they? Obviously, contrary to your suggestions, there are non-Straight White Guys employed in substantial numbers at law firms-- or there wouldn't be anyone to attend the womens' lunches, gay cocktail parties, minority events, etc. As I said in my first post, I don't really see these events as anything to get terribly upset about, but it is rather inconsistent with the message of "celebrating diversity" that pervades corporate culture that we still have segregated events for special classes of employees, isn't it? And contrary to your suggestions, the fact is that no firm would *ever* consider hosting an event to which only straight white men were invited; the outrage-o-meter would go through the roof, and rightly so, I think; but that does make it a little difficult to justify special events for other classes of employees.

Enough with the stories about law firm receptions for minorities/diversity/foreigners/aliens. Nobody cares.

Your firm has a "Straight White Guys cocktail party" it's called the partner retreat.

Weil NYC had a recruiting event just for GLBT, the spread was tremendous.

2:55,
Ha! At my old firm (150 attorneys), the "event" to which only straight white men were invited was called the PARTNERSHIP!

"[t]here are non-Straight White Guys employed in substantial numbers at law firms . . ."

Hahahahahaha! Hohohohoho! Heeheehee! That's a good one!

Oh. You were serious. Let's put it this way -- if you cut out the first and second years, the copying and service departments and the assistants (i.e, the lower rungs of the law firm ladder), can you still make that statement?

Me and all the other black associates at my firm meet every Friday to play cards. The game is called solitaire.

Slow news day, Lat?

Slow Lat day, news?

Gentlemen with whom I attended Choate often held balls where the only guests were foppish dandies. This was not a conspicuous event.

Why would they have a gay event at Sidebar Grille and not Sidetrack?

Re the K&E Diversity Fellowship:

The fellowship/scholarship is offered to diverse students who already hold offers from K&E.

It's essentially no different than any of the minority/diversity scholarships offered by many other law firms.

Reading the Volokh Conspiracy with Bernstein's posts automatically excluded has really improved the quality of my life. It's an easy way to turn down the volume of a guy who is shrill, boring and repetitive.

http://volokh.com/?exclude=davidb

"Oh. You were serious. Let's put it this way -- if you cut out the first and second years, the copying and service departments and the assistants (i.e, the lower rungs of the law firm ladder), can you still make that statement?"

Depending on how one defines "substantial," yes. I think that under a reasonable threshold of substantiality, it remains a valid statement.

i know this isnt the right place but here is a general question: at what rate do top law firms bill out their associates?

3:34, you're right. This isn't the right place.

LOL, 3:05!

@3:34 douchebag.

i wonder how many appletinis were served at this event

oh surprise, people who read this blog are bigots. go back to defending corporate america, you're wasting billable time.

This party was thrown so the management committee would know who to remove from partnership track.

It is ridiculous that people as worthless to humankind as lawyers could have anything against the gays

Hope there were glory holes.

3:50-3:55,

Welcome! Please stay awhile, let us know if you'd like anything.

Anyone read the names on the K&E diversity scholarship list? It reads like a who's who of Asian and South Asian Americans. Very diverse.

Someone should organize a networking event for Lawyers Advocating Ideological Diversity ("LAID") Flyers could prominently feature the true rationale for diversity initiatives, differences in perspective rather than tan lines. Members would focus on improving dialog rather than balkanizing into identity groups.

Tell me more about these tan lines....

This is a party for the members of a certain firm-sponsored group. I think they can limit their party to their members. So, the underlying question is whether the firm-sponsored group (presumably, a firm-benefit) allows non-GLBT members. If so, then there is no discrimination. If not, then that is more of a problem than the fact of whether the invitation excludes them.

I'm straight and got the invite. If you expressed an interest in "diversity issues" at any point between Day 1 of summer and now, you got on the email list.

Tipster's probably closeted and upset that the email didn't require that he attend.

Why didn't I get an invite?

4:24 is right. Maybe Tipster's a closet queen or one of those with "latent homosexual curiosity" and really WANTS to attend, but since it's not required of him and since it's not being advertised as open to non-gays, he's afraid that going would be a public statement of his GBLT-leanings.... He wants to have his cake and eat it too (in the closet, of course, with the bear from IT...mmm, frosting).

This thread is worthless without a picture of the bear from IT.

Who cares? They are a private company and can do what they want.

What, what, in the butt?

OK!

I work in Chicago and at my firm, the diversity committee organized a retreat this last fall for lgbt attorneys and attorneys of color to come network and team-build with the management committee. At the bottom of the invitation, it noted that a similar opportunity would be forthcoming in the spring for female attorneys. Though i generally am supportive of efforts to build greater diversity, this struck me as quite a discriminatory effort by a prominent firm. It was essentially like saying all white male heterosexual attorneys, you're not going to have the opportunity to come network with the most influential attorneys at the firm, you're not going to have the opportunity to come stay at a swanky hotel and team-build with the ones that matter. It struck me WAY wrong! And no, the opportunity was not extended to non-lgbt attorneys or non-attorneys of color. It was a dis-invitation to all others. Does this strike anyone else as wrong?

So if they decided to institute a policy of not hiring or promoting LGBT employees, that would be okay, right 5:01? Get back to those Con Law readings, you've got a long way to go.

Once again, a wasted opportunity to post homoerotic pictures of men on ATL.

I want EYE CANDY with my gay gossip posts, please!

5:18, thanks for setting me straight. I didn't realize how important it was to you to be invited to a reception you would not have attended anyway.

I hit the books like you suggested, but I couldn't find the clause in the Constitution that requires private employers to ask for your permission before hosting receptions for its own employees. Maybe you can help me with that.

People, please. I'm a straight, white, married, male biglaw associate. Not only does it NOT bother me when firms (or law schools) organize such "discriminatory" events - I actually support and commend their efforts. For all of their (recent) gains, women, minorities and gays/lesbians are still quite marginalized. If they want to get together for drinks and be able to actually "be themselves," great.

What I am troubled by is the fact that anyone would want to go to the crappy Sidebar Grille.

Private companies can do whatever they want. There is no state action.

For those that think this is no big deal, how is it any different than if there had been a whites-only party? Anybody sending such an email would have been fired instantly.

No, private companies cannot "do whatever they want."

Section 2-102 of the Illinois Human Rights Act makes it “a civil rights violation . . . For any employer to refuse to hire, to segregate, or to act with respect to recruitment, hiring, promotion, renewal of employment, selection for training or apprenticeship, discharge, discipline, tenure or terms, privileges or conditions of employment on the basis of unlawful discrimination or citizenship status.” 775 ILCS 5/2‑102.

“Unlawful discrimination’ means discrimination against a person because of his or her race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, handicap, military status, sexual orientation, or unfavorable discharge from military service as those terms are defined in this Section.” 775 ILCS 5/1‑103

5:36: After your first year of lawschool, you will learn about this whole other set of laws that, gasp, are not in the Constitution and do apply to private employers.

LOL @ 6:10.

6:07, please enlighten us as to how the statutes you cite would apply in this case. As far as I can tell, the firm did not refuse to hire, promote, or renew employment for any non-invitees. They didn't discharge anyone, or discipline them, or diminish the conditions of their employment.

They held a reception. Get over it.

and can't really figure out why this firm is inviting ALL lgbt lawyers from Chicago to this shinding. Is this to build up goodwill with the lgbt community at large in Chicago? If so, wouldn't making a substantial contribution to supporting various lgbt issues get its name out there better than a night of cosmos and shrimp and egg roll bites? Or is K&E know for this kind of financial generosity already?

Or is this a not-so-subtle way of recruiting laterals to build up their diversity numbers?

Since it was K&E, the entire firm showed up, right?

K&E donated $25,000 this summer to the Center on Halsted. Which is essentially an LGBT Community Center in Chicago.

wait, we're talking K&E here. the invite was inclusive. redundant, but inclusive.

Maybe the K&E "fellowship" is legal... how about this:

-------------
I received the letter and resume that you recently forwarded to my attention. Unfortunately, the only remaining position available for our summer program at this time is for a 1L minority student. Each year our firm provides a scholarship and paid summer clerkship to an outstanding Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, Asian and American Indian or Alaskan Native. If you feel you qualify and would like to receive the application and related materials, please let me know. We will be accepting applications until January 28th.

Thank you for your interest in Baker Hostetler.
---------------

To 6:40--

I'm guessing you are the same commenter as "bear" who didn't realize there are laws outside the U.S. Constitution.

It is interesting how you gloss right over the parts of the statute that might apply, to assert that it clearly doesn't.
It is a “a civil rights violation . . . For any employer . . ."
- to segregate . . .
- to act with respect to recruitment . . .
- to act with respect to terms, privileges or conditions of employment . . .
". . . on the basis of unlawful discrimination or citizenship status.”

The invitation segregates employees into two classes based on unlawful discrimination status (non-LGBT versus LGBT). The event is a recruiting/retention effort. And attending this fancy soiree could be considered a "privilege of employment" granted only to those with one protected status.

If the firm sponsored a "whites only" or "men only" career advancement club, I imagine you'd agree it is covered. Although there is certainly a practical distinction between that and a diversity initative like that under discussion, there is no legal distinction under that law. If you think one is illegal, so is the other.

How many transgender K&E associates do you think showed up?