Step 1: Get a job at big law
Step 2: Identify as "gay"
Step 3: Someone at the firm will inevitably be uncomfortable with you. Document it carefully.
Step 4: Get fired - perfomance or layoff based is fine
Step 5: Sue the firm for huge $$$
Step 6: Settle for big $$$
Step 7: Repeat or retire, your choice

nice job of NOT redacting her home telephone number or the last two digits of her date of birth. or this a backhanded way of looking for another 'position"

by the way, LOTS of folks have had no work - and nothing to do - for the last year. up or out, as we used to say.

Seriously, you should redact the home phone number.

I'm worried about being laid off and have heard the partners say, well, you're not married and don't have children.

While I think it's admirable that they're so considerate of those with a family to support, they know nothing of my responsibilities (loans, and loans, and helping my working class parents).

It blows. Way to punish the unmarrieds.

What does this have to do with Davis Polk's 17% drop in PPP?

I have already declared myself gay, disabled, and a Pacific Islander. Is there anything else I can do to protect myself from termination and/or lay the groundwork for a discrimination lawsuit?

Sure, play the Discrimination Card, when people of all sorts of backgrounds are being laid off everywhere. Since when was partnership ever a lock anyway?

I hope this golddigger gets smacked down hard, legal-style!

Telephone number is clearly Fried Frank's general number- dumbass.
Lots of people have had no work, but she may be asserting that she had work, but her assignments were unfairly shifted to others as part of the alleged discrimination.

Damn, I have a wife and 2 kids...is it to late to declare myself gay so I can file a suit after I get fired?

Question for the employment lawyers:

I was under the impression that the EEOC only handles federal cases like Title VII, ADA, etc. and that sexual orientation is not included under those laws. Isn't sexual orientation generally handled under state/local law?

If so, why the EEOC complaint? Can someone enlighten me?

Elie I support you, but Jesus Christ REDACT THE HOME TELEPHONE NUMBER please!

where is the article on DPW? ellie you lazy piece of shit, do your fucking job.

Question for the employment lawyers:

I was under the impression that the EEOC only handles federal cases like Title VII, ADA, etc. and that sexual orientation is not included under those laws. Isn't sexual orientation generally handled under state/local law?

If so, why the EEOC complaint? Can someone enlighten me?

12 here,
-9 you are wrong. There is a "home telephone" number listed. READ next time.
-Elie, remove the damn number!

#9: There are two telephone numbers. Her home number and Fried Frank's general number. Her number should be redacted.

I fried franks for 10 years but I was fired for not frying enough franks. Now I sell fried franks from my own stand.

Elie - Would you please get a clue? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with "Non-Gender-Conforming." Gay people don't identify as the other sex nor do they dress or nescesarily act like the opposite sex. Generally, they are 100% "gender conforming."

"Telephone number is clearly Fried Frank's general number- dumbass."

except for the one above it that says "Home Phone". dumbass

And did you really need to leave her home address on there too?

Elie REDACT her home phone

14: This states a claim of GENDER discrimination. "Because of my sex" does not refer to the type of sex she likes to have.

Elie REDACT her home phone

Interesting. There was a mediation, but Kamps says she doesn't know what the explanation was/will be for her firing.

@18 - Read top line of the second page of the complaint. Elie isn't wrong ALL the time. Just most of the time.

12, 15, and 20 here.
I'm a 3L, does any lawyer know whether Elie's gross negligence in posting her "home telephone" number could be a basis for some kind of a lawsuit? Especially since this is a business enterprise (i.e., less protection under 1st Amendment analysis)?

ELIE, REMOVE HER HOME PHONE PLEASE!

the address is clearly Fried Frank's DUMBASS. I've walked by one NY plaza many times

Thanks for that, 24... guess it helps to actually read the complaint.

-18

12, 15, and 20 here.
I'm a 3L, does any lawyer know whether Elie's gross negligence in posting her "home telephone" number could be a basis for some kind of a lawsuit? Especially since this is a business enterprise (i.e., less protection under 1st Amendment analysis)?

ELIE, REMOVE HER HOME PHONE PLEASE!

18 -- "Non gender conforming" was a quote from the document. Cool it.

21: She also listed "sexual orientation" as one of the bases for the alleged discrimination against her.

why did she wait until now to file such a case?

@21 - No, read the complaint. She has clearly checked off the box that says "Other" and written in Sexual Orientation.

18- I'm assuming what "non gender conforming" means is that she either self identifies or would be classified in the lesbian community as, for lack of a better word, "butch".

18- I'm assuming what "non gender conforming" means is that she either self identifies or would be classified in the lesbian community as, for lack of a better word, "butch".

26: Her home address on John Street, as well as her phone number, is listed.

Is it really so hard for so-called attorneys to actually read something simple and comprehend it?

14, it was dual-filed with the New York human rights agencies and the EEOC, so the sexual orientation claim is being brought under NY state law. The NY agencies will likely investigate the charge and the EEOC will just adopt their findings.

I guess this dame (and I use that word loosely) didn't take the severance package (in exchange for a release of claims). Probably a smart move. They'll pay her nicely to go away.

"Sexual orientation" should be a preprinted choice on this form.

@21 - No, read the complaint. She has clearly checked off the box that says "Other" and written in Sexual Orientation.

Check out her pic:

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:QTkqqHEiyYUJ:www.ffhsj.com/index.cfm%3FpageID%3D42%26itemID%3D360+%22julie+kamps%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Discriminated against because gay? Probably not.

Discriminated against because looks like a bulldog? Probably so.

Does her description say that she was fired during a mediation about her complaint that she wasn't promoted to partner for discriminatory reasons? Am I getting that right?

37:

If you are making a political statement, fair enough.

If you are making a legal statement, it is incorrect since federal law does not specify sexual orientation as a protected class for employment discrimination.

redact home phone number

I thought SCOTUS refused to apply the non-gender conforming discrimination cause of action to sexual orientation. IIRC, the plaintiff tried to say he was fired because he didn't conform to the masculine stereotype of liking women, but that didn't fly. If that's what Kamps is claiming, then she won't even make it past the motion to dismiss.

Delete comment 39 please.

"The associate in question, Julie Kamps, sent her EEOC complaint into Above the Law."

She obviously doesn't care if ATL (and its readers) know her address and phone number. Relax people.

REDACT HOME PHONE NUMBER!

Oh my God. Sorry to say it, but who would hire someone that tough on the eyes? That is some powerful ugly right there.

They probably fired her during the mediation after she threatened to kick the living shit out of the 8 men in the room with "her." Based on that photo, she could easily do it.

41 and 43, again, the charge was filed with NY state agencies and dual-filed with the EEOC. The sexual orientation claim is being brought under NY state and/or local law, not federal law.

elie: you generally make various errors. fine. people say mean things that i think are unjustified. fine.
but the number should be redacted. have you not read the comments yet? or do you not care?

"I'm worried about being laid off and have heard the partners say, well, you're not married and don't have children.

While I think it's admirable that they're so considerate of those with a family to support, they know nothing of my responsibilities (loans, and loans, and helping my working class parents).

It blows. Way to punish the unmarrieds"

Although it is not prohibited under federal law or the laws of many states, both New York and California prohibit an employer from discriminating against an employee (which includes discrimination in assignments, compensation, termination decisions, etc.) on the basis of an employee's marital status.

If you are or have been terminated and you believe that your status as a single person played any role whatsoever in the termination decision, then you (if you live in NY or California) might end up with a nice fat settlement in the end.

The crazy thing is that unlike discrimination that is based on race, gender, etc. (where partners know they must be careful), many partners actually have no idea that discrimination against persons that are single is even unlawful. That often makes these cases easy to prove because, as demonstrated by the partner comment referenced above, employers often recklessly make statements confirming that they are acting unlawfully without even knowing that they are doing so.

These statements are admitted in most jurisdictions as non-hearsay "admissions against interest by an agent of a party." That is imporatant because, although a jury may decide to give them little or no weight at trial, the evidence is nonetheless sufficient to get past summary judgment (remember Celotex?).
As any employment litigator knows, the ability to get past summary judgment is the key to unlocking the settlement coffers.

43, I presume her non-gender conforming claim would be a more straightforward claim than simply repackage a sexual orientation claim.

14, 18, et al. -- the charge is cross-filed at the state and the EEOC. She checked "gender" and added "sexual orientation." She's probably going to argue that her EEOC / Title VII claim is non-conforming to gender norms (Price Waterhouse) and her state claim is based on gender and sexual orientation.

48:

Understood, the comment was merely addressing why Sexual Orientation is not preprinted on the EEOC form.

-41

39 and 47, word just in that Fried Frank hired this guy to represent them in the action:

http://www.thedogbitelawyer.com/

Delete comment 47, please.

I just left a message on her home answering machine saying that Elie MysTTTal gave me her number.

I'm shocked by some of the ignorant comments on this post. Being discriminated against on grounds of sexual orientation is a serious matter, akin to racial or gender discrimination.

While it may be funny to some small-minded individuals to make light of the matter, if true, this is a serious issue preventing a good lawyer from achieving what she potentially could. The existence of a "gay glass ceiling", if true, is disgusting and it saddens me that others in the profession don't consider it so.

REDACT THE PHONE NUMBER, AND THEN RESIGN. WE ARE TIRED OF YOU.

BULLDOG!!!!!!!! HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA

BULLDOG!!!!!!!! HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA

BULLDOG!!!!!!!! HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHA

Wow. Amazing picture. Also why do you people care if the phone number and address are printed? If "she" cares she should probably stop distributing the information to public websites.

Fried Frank fired her DURING a mediation about her discrimination complaints? Could that really be true?

You think putting "her" in quotations is smart? I hope it makes you feel proud you bigotted pieces of dirt.

62. I am sure you have never made a mistake. Get some humanity.

Elie, Mediate this thread for god sake! You should have a sense what types of threads are going to require more mediation. Don't post one and then go on an extended break!

Agree with 62. I can't imagine a more idiotic idea than to send a charge of discrimination to ATL. Not only has she started an all-out war with Fried Frank, thus destroying the likelihood of settlement, but good luck finding a job, babe.

Also, this is not a lawsuit. It is a precursor to a lawsuit. So it is not the lawsuit of the day. It is the precursor to a lawsuit of the day.

57: How do you know she's a good lawyer? She was an associate there for 10 years.

wow 65 comments and the home address/phone number STILL isn't redacted???

and 45, you idiot, regardless of how ATL got the complaint, it's been standard procedure here to redact that stuff.

44, 55-

Bashing the ugly has been done humorously from time immemorial, and your weak entreaties to cover it up are a waste of time.

If ATL got the complaint from a public site, then would everyone please shut up about blacking out phone numbers and addresses on the complaint? If the gov't agency legally posted it with all information viewable, then ATL has done no (additional) wrong. You want to lean on the State for legal remedy, take the good with the bad.

Oh, I'm so offended by the mean posters here. I happen to love fat, ugly lesbians, being one myself.

57: I think most people would agree that discrimination based on sexual orientation is wrong and a serious matter. However, there are few places that are more obsessed with political correctness and liberalism that the modern biglaw firm. I have worked at 3 large firms and have seen openly gay partners, associates, and staff and have not seen a single instance of treatment that can be described as anything other than complete respect and acceptance if not favoritism. Firms are practically begging associates to declare themselves openly gay so they can brag about it on their NALP forms. That, combined with the fact that thousands of associates are being terminated at all levels of the legal industry, makes questioning the veracity of this complaint completely legitimate. False claims of harrassment and discrimination do as much harm to true equality and diversity as actual discrimination itself.

"In an interview, Kamps tells The Am Law Daily the mistreatment began sometime in 2006 but got worse this fall. She says the firm began taking work away from her, leaving her with nothing to do. "

Welcome to BigLaw.

Do all of these polly-annas at NYC BigLaw honestly think the firms make $2 MM/year PPP by making everyone partner?

To 69 and others screaming for the telephone number redaction - it's not like this was sent to him by some random person. Julie Kamps sent it herself. She should have redacted that shit herself before sending. She clearly was not an attorney worth her salt if she didn't have enough sense to do that.

Where's Vince the Shamwow guy? I think we need a couple of tons of Shamwows to get that picture out of our collective eyes.

stfu about the home number already. ugh.

I'm shocked by some of the ignorant comments on this post. Being discriminated against on grounds of an asslobster infection is a serious matter, akin to racial or gender discrimination.

While it may be funny to some small-minded individuals to make light of the matter, if true, this is a serious issue preventing a good lawyer from achieving what she potentially could. The existence of an "asslobster glass ceiling", if true, is disgusting and it saddens me that others in the profession don't consider it so.

there are few places that are more obsessed with political correctness and liberalism that the modern biglaw firm.
__________________________________________

Right--that's why almost all partners are straight white men.

57 - i was fired for having a small penis, it was no big deal.

Does anyone else think she looks like the female lawyer in "The Practice"? I can't remember her name...

Methinks 57 needs to unclutch her pearls and forcefully remove the yardstick from her ass.

uh, 70, what part of "The associate in question, Julie Kamps, sent her EEOC complaint into Above the Law" didn't you read?

first to say - the cat's away!!

come on mice!!!

I am offended by fat ugly lesbians. Please wear a bag over your head and moderate.

50- Thanks. I'll definitely listen out for more comments of the sort.

- 5

No way, 80! I think her name was something like Camryn Manheim (close enough), and she was 1,000 times more attractive than THIS ONE.

John McCain (check out "this one")

70, you are a poor human being.

84 - i lolled,

whokebe

why should ellie mediate? he's the editor-in-chief, no? have some underling do it. anyway, #2 + nailed it.

Don't redact her phone number. Big Bertha is probably looking for a little action from someone, anyone, at this point.

Her charge indicates that she is represented by counsel (and lists their phone number) at the end of the description. I wonder if they know she's shared her charge with the world? Let's call them.

You don't have to be a straight white man to start learning how to make millions in real estate with no money down (but it helps).

You know Elie posted this just to get our base, childish reactions, right? Way to go, Elie! We need more of these posts to distract us from the impending Depression of Doom.

79, I almost married a man with a small penis until I realized it really was a big deal.

I worked with Julie at Fried Frank and I can say, without any doubt, that she was one of the brightest, most amazing attorneys I ever worked with. Her peers at her level just couldn't compete. She was incredibly hard working and an amazing writer. I was actually shocked to hear that she didn't make partner -- she was definitely the best litigation associate in the NY office.

94 - penisist

95 - penisest

95: Hi Julie.

95 = Julie

I would like to see a graph plotting incidents of 'mistreatment' over time superimposed over a graph of her weight over time. This should show non-disriminatory alternative reasons for the layoff.

As Justice Stone memorably said in footnote 4 of Caroline Products: "The fourteenth amendment does a lot of things, but it doesn't protect ugly."

First to say glad I'm an L&E associate!

93 - impending?

Wake up and smell the soup line soup pal...we are ballsdeep in Depression and fuctard Obama sure as hell has zero idea on how to get us out of it.

This is 95; nope, I'm not Julie.

95 - was she a "bulldog" in the courtroom?

Misery reported at Fried Frank?

No way!!!

Next to CWT it has got to be the most miserable place to work in the Financial District (apologies in advance to Stroock which is also a horrible place to draw a paycheck).

99 et al.: You wouldn't say these things to her in person; don't say them here.

95/102: Have fun at your deposition.

Hope you were not expecting to make partner...LOL.

So true, 95, so true. Julie is just fabulous. She is the bestest attorney evah and we love her to death.

signed,

Rosie O'Donnell & Ellen Degeneres

Vince here saying linguine, fettucine, martini, bikini, better hold it on the bikini, you with me, camera guy.

99: can you give a cite for that case...

105: I would say them to her face if I weren't afraid she'd sit on me or coldcock me (no pun intended). Maybe we should just send her to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to bring back Bin Laden dead or alive. She's the best man for the job, I'd say.

1) unmod ATL

2) ????

3) Profit!!!!

Thank you, Vince. Do you have something to clean up this big mess? And I do mean big. How many ShamWows can you spare?

111 are you an underpants gnome????

What is Julie? Is it similar to a Hot Carla?

No bulldog, bear.

She went to the Ursuline Academy.

111 are you an underpants gnome????

Comment removed by moderator.

This seems like an impossible case to prove. Even good associates get turned down for partner. Also, how do you spend 10 years at a firm as an associate?

Vince here, ShamWOW holds ten times its weight in liquid. I think you may need several hundred.

MODERATE!

99 here.

105: Define "in person." If you mean in a legal proceeding, then yes, I would say that her appearance has a bearing on whether I give her equity in my client services business.

109: I read about it in the Journal of Let's Find More Suspect Classifications. 54 JLFMSC 101

120 - hi julie!

121, if your client wanted to go *on the record* making that defense, then by all means, you go ahead and represent them and make that argument in a legal proceeding.
You and others, however, make cowardly assertions hiding behind your anonymity that you would never ever ever say to her in person.

43, see Oncale v. Sundowner for a discussion of the non-gender conforming point.

What is a Hot Julie? Is it similar to a Hot Carl but for bull-dykes?

Discrimination? What that? Like when I get the back of my crafty Jew lawyers and I get fired from my coaching job?

Discrimination is bullsheeeeeet!!!!!!!!

I bow to your brilliance, 117. I truly do.

Moderate 117... (NOT Julie but a straight married guy who doesn't know her but feels she shouldn't be subjected ot his level of personal abuse - even though she opened the door herself.)

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

117 - post of the year.

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

MODERATE.

Has anyone here been making cowardly assertions hiding behind their anonymity that they would never ever ever say to her in person? If so, see me after class.

MODERATE.

This entire thread is unprofessional...and kinda gay

123: Ppoppycock. Anonymous writings are a wellspring of good ideas, the bedrock of democracy, and the cornerstore of any nutrious breakfast. See, e.g., All the shit Thomas Payne wrote and post 39, supra. All have essentially strengthened our libery and freedom.

Do not moderate. As 128 pointed out, she opened the door for this justifiable abuse. ATL won't ever be the same for me, knowing that Julie may be lurking or even posting on the very same thread I'm on. So thanks for that, drama queen.

117 = comment of the year. Elie better not moderate it. Comments like that are why people read ATL.

TWO HUNDRETH?

117 pretty much won the internet right there

Elie doesn't have time to moderate right now: he's busy posting a story about Sonnenschein's new partners.

57 here - in the non-gendered restroom pulling a non-phallic stick out of my ass - miss anything offensive?

I proclaim 117 the reigning King of ATL!

-- a very humble servant

137 is right about 121 being right.

please don't rush Ellie to moderate, he'll foul up his next post!

But whe you are free EM, please moderate 133-142, except for the funny one in the middle

I cannot stop laughing at 117. That was off the hook.

--54

"forward facing posterior "

HA!

maybe these two can just switch jobs - problem solved

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/CMU_womens_coach_sued_by_explayer

ROFL @117. Bravo!

99 is the runner-up poster of the day.

What's her next career move? She might want to check out an open spot on the bench in Nevada now that Judge Halverson is gone. It already has all the extra wide seats and stalls built in.

We're hiding the frying pans, #159. Thanks for the tip.

FRONT BUTT HAHHAHAHAHAHAHHA

159!!! Zing!

All the numbers are f-ed up.

She looks like a professional wrestler.

I used to work at FFHSJ. I'm no apologist, but they're very open to all lifestyles/ orientations/ preferences/etc. In D.C., we had a transvetite contract attorney working for us for a long time. [Not kidding.] There were some issues with bathroom use, but it really was no big deal. So I don't give this claim any credence.

FIRSTIES!

Lesbians in my high school always looked like bulldogs. It was no big deal.

Fried Frank fires Frau Farbissina for eating fried franks far too freely.

128: Seriously, stfu and grow some balls. 117 was hilarious. If you want to publicize your lame assertions on a blog, you take the risk of having it blow up in your face.

117 is GENIUS!

Oh, and 64 - You are a moron. If someone adamantly insists that gender is nothing but a social construct that she is entitled to proudly strut her "non-gender conforming" stuff, then they have no right to complain when someone takes them at their word and puts "her" in quotes.

117 is GENIUS!

Oh, and 64 - You are a moron. If someone adamantly insists that gender is nothing but a social construct and that she is entitled to proudly strut her "non-gender conforming" stuff, then they have no right to complain when someone takes them at their word and puts "her" in quotes.

I am NOT gay. I have never been gay...

FRIED FRANK = GOING DOWN!!!

love u Elie!

How many of the lesbian bashing comments were posted by Fried Frank partners?

Elie you fat lard, you should be ashamed of yourself for not deleting the lesbian bashing comments. Your moderation policy is completely worthless if you don't take down comments like these.

Oh 117, thank you. It is gems like that that make me keep clicking "show them anyway". Well done.

I can't believe she lasted that long. Would you ever show a woman that ugly to a client? No, you wouldn't. They might throw up right in the room. This woman is legendarily ugly.

The lit dept. is partner heavy. Several other smart, hard-working associates had to leave because of this. It's the norm at a mid to large law firm. Most were white and heterosexual so being gay has nothing to do with it.

95 -- you must be kidding. i knew her when i worked at FFHSJ. she was an obnoxious jerk. she repeatedly harassed people -- sexual and sexual orientation -- in the office and at firm activities. she had a reputation for hitting on new female hires. i'm surprised she lasted as long as she did without the firm getting sued because of her.

I was also at FFHSJ. Contrary to what was noted above, I am not at all surprised by this. The DC office may as well be a different firm for all the contact you have with them. The NY litigation department is like working in a fraternity house, and the partners - at least the ones in the "power positions" - are unpleasant to deal with unless you want the rest of your life to be a giant tailgate keg party.

I knew Julie and I know what the NY office folks are like. I've been gone a while so I really can't say whether her allegations are true, but they are certainly not patently untrue. FFHSJ may have an "official policy" of "openness and diversity" and certain partners and departments there certainly live up to it. But the litigation department was not one of those departments and the folks that probably caused the trouble and recommended that she be fired are undoubtedly not nearly as "open to diversity" as the firm likes to advertise.

Oh, my God. I cannot believe this. You guys have absolutely proved Julie's point better than she could have ever done herself. The ferocity of the hostility, the sheer magnitude and quantity of anti-woman comments expressed in this column is staggering. What is the women's movement about? Women not having to get by on their looks, not having to "make up" for being female by wearing cosmetics, clothes, etc.

You are also abysmally visually and culturally illiterate--and racist. Julie is beautiful, and the ugly comments are a projection of yourselves. She reminds me of the beautiful paintings by Renoir of his wife, whose wide, round face reflected a kind of soft, voluptuousness in all his models (including his young sons Coco and Pierre, who are often indistinguishable from girls in the father's paintings). Renoirs fulsome women exemplied a deceptively soft style and joie de vivre with a classical structure as solid and powerful as Julie's Harvard degree.

Look at Indian painting. Look at women in Chinese art, with their stylized, exaggeratedly rounded faces. Look at Rubens. And first and foremost, look at the faces of BLACK women. Black women who have suffered for years because they lacked the chiseled features of white Anglo women, the tall slim WHITE features for which young girls can diet themselves to death out of desperation to survive in viciously anti-women, anti-aging society.

And Julie is a mensch. I spent many enjoyable assignments working for her, if you could call it work, because she went out of her way to make my job as stress-free as possible. She was so well organized and above petty power trips--unlike one of the pathetic Ph.D./J.D. associates who made me revise his letter to Columbia requesting his transcript nine times before sending it out!

Human kindness counts for a lot. You see it immediately in how a boss respects your person and your work. And Julie was also extremely modest about her Harvard degree and powerful, privileged position as a lawyer, which reflects a generosity of spirit that is missing from the comments of almost everyone on this post, with very few exceptions.

There have been many examples at Fried Frank, some confirmed by the EEOC, of discrimination and retaliation in the past. In addition, a number of Fried Frank's well-executed patterns of discrimination and deception, at all levels of authority, have come to light since around 50 of the staff were "laid off" in the NY office on August 18th. James Joyce wrote that truth is the daughter of time, and with each passing month, more and more information comes out, which confirms what we have been saying--first individually and more and more as a group.

Employment discrimination cases, I have been told by numerous labor lawyers as well as reading on the web, are proven not by one instance alone but by the whole set of circumstances of a case. Believe me, there are a whole set of circumstances that show Fried Frank's illegal practices and hostile environment, and especially its intent. And, unfortunately, if it weren't already obvious, that the legal world itself is a hostile environment for women has been amply proven by this column. (AND LEAVE ELIE ALONE.)

Just one example: in the Aug. 18th layoff, NONE, I repeat, NONE of the secretarial and word processing staff who were laid of were men. True, men were a minority among those employees. However, none of them lost their jobs.

Fried Frank has relied on the absence of a labor union, both for staff and attorneys, in carrying out its ruthless terminations. The unbridled hostility that most of you have shown in your writings here only proves how well the bosses have divided and conquered us as workers whose true interests will be served only when we fight together for better working conditions, not just for ourselves but for everyone in our society. Unfortunately, the current downturn may be bringing out the worst in some people.

Oh, my God. I cannot believe this. You guys have absolutely proved Julie's point better than she could have ever done herself. The ferocity of the hostility, the sheer magnitude and quantity of anti-woman comments expressed in this column is staggering. What is the women's movement about? Women not having to get by on their looks, not having to "make up" for being female by wearing cosmetics, clothes, etc.

You are also abysmally visually and culturally illiterate--and racist. Julie is beautiful, and the ugly comments are a projection of yourselves. She reminds me of the beautiful paintings by Renoir of his wife, whose wide, round face reflected a kind of soft, voluptuousness in all his models (including his young sons Coco and Pierre, who are often indistinguishable from girls in the father's paintings). Renoirs fulsome women exemplied a deceptively soft style and joie de vivre with a classical structure as solid and powerful as Julie's Harvard degree.

Look at Indian painting. Look at women in Chinese art, with their stylized, exaggeratedly rounded faces. Look at Rubens. And first and foremost, look at the faces of BLACK women. Black women who have suffered for years because they lacked the chiseled features of white Anglo women, the tall slim WHITE features for which young girls can diet themselves to death out of desperation to survive in viciously anti-women, anti-aging society.

And Julie is a mensch. I spent many enjoyable assignments working for her, if you could call it work, because she went out of her way to make my job as stress-free as possible. She was so well organized and above petty power trips--unlike one of the pathetic Ph.D./J.D. associates who made me revise his letter to Columbia requesting his transcript nine times before sending it out!

Human kindness counts for a lot. You see it immediately in how a boss respects your person and your work. And Julie was also extremely modest about her Harvard degree and powerful, privileged position as a lawyer, which reflects a generosity of spirit that is missing from the comments of almost everyone on this post, with very few exceptions.

There have been many examples at Fried Frank, some confirmed by the EEOC, of discrimination and retaliation in the past. In addition, a number of Fried Frank's well-executed patterns of discrimination and deception, at all levels of authority, have come to light since around 50 of the staff were "laid off" in the NY office on August 18th. James Joyce wrote that truth is the daughter of time, and with each passing month, more and more information comes out, which confirms what we have been saying--first individually and more and more as a group.

Employment discrimination cases, I have been told by numerous labor lawyers as well as reading on the web, are proven not by one instance alone but by the whole set of circumstances of a case. Believe me, there are a whole set of circumstances that show Fried Frank's illegal practices and hostile environment, and especially its intent. And, unfortunately, if it weren't already obvious, that the legal world itself is a hostile environment for women has been amply proven by this column. (AND LEAVE ELIE ALONE.)

Just one example: in the Aug. 18th layoff, NONE, I repeat, NONE of the secretarial and word processing staff who were laid of were men. True, men were a minority among those employees. However, none of them lost their jobs.

Fried Frank has relied on the absence of a labor union, both for staff and attorneys, in carrying out its ruthless terminations. The unbridled hostility that most of you have shown in your writings here only proves how well the bosses have divided and conquered us as workers whose true interests will be served only when we fight together for better working conditions, not just for ourselves but for everyone in our society. Unfortunately, the current downturn may be bringing out the worst in some people.

Correction: Renoir's son, who became a famous filmmaker, was named Jean, not Pierre--I was thinking of Pierre Matisse, son of the painter, who had a prominent gallery in New York.