Date: November 14th, 2023 11:29 AM Author: arousing voyeur dilemma
ljl there has to be lolsuit for this, at least in CA political affiliation is grounds i think
In response to the Biglaw letter, Sidley attorney Melat Kiros drafted a lengthy piece critiquing the signatory firms for conflating antisemitism with geopolitical commentary. Kiros argued that while antisemitic harassment and violence is rightly denounced, critical statements about the state of Israel as a political entity represent the sort of core political speech that is “the bedrock principle of a true democracy.” By failing to grapple with this distinction in the letter, “the chilling effect is undeniable,” on attorneys worried about their jobs.
Date: November 14th, 2023 11:32 AM Author: Aromatic space trust fund
Even if there is a lolsuit, it's cheaper to pay it out than to keep her on board. This is ultimately driven by clients who decide which firms get which work and (((in house counsel))) isn't shy about what they want firms to do here.
Date: November 14th, 2023 12:05 PM Author: Thriller judgmental stag film pozpig
We run everything, brother. What did all the people getting fired, dinged, outed, and other shit think was going to happen? Dumb goyim. The URM really shot themselves in the foot here, as jews were the only ally they had.
Date: November 14th, 2023 12:28 PM Author: Fuchsia Main People
People are, understandably, taking my point to imply that there's some sort of even handed policy proscribing political views in biglaw. There is not, of course.
I was just stating my personal policy and preference.