Fired summer associate Forum

[pithypike]

I don't agree. I think it's important to recognize nuances of social interactions. You pretend they are clearcut and straightforward, which is clearly and objectively not the case.

To answer your question, if a woman is, for example, grinding on a guy, the answer as to whether it is appropriate for that man to put his hand on her hips (something I believe you would consider groping, though it may be acceptable if said grope was consented to) is not immediately clear. Obviously

If a woman is grinding on a guy at a firm after party she’s initiating groping behavior/groping, just as inappropriately as if the roles were reversed imo. But that’s not what anyone was ever talking about here - except of course in my prediction that people would fall back to the “what if she was bunping and grinding?!” hypo. I cannot for the life of me tell why we assume the alleged gropee actually initiated the groping. Anything to keep defending the poor poor OP, I guess.

I'm speaking in generics, not so much as to this specific OP.

So in that situation, two people dancing, her grinding on him, what is the scope of consent for his hands? You seem to think the answer is extremely clear cut. What is that answer?

I’m really not interested in generics. I’ve been talking about this situation (and responding to others’ posts about it) this whole time.

That said, I think anyone who is truly grinding on someone else (bodily touching) is consenting to...exactly as much touching as they initiated. Anything with your own hands, assume at your peril. Grinding is not unequivocal consent to any specific other act. (I personally think it’s a yucky bad way to dance because there’s usually no indication people consent to be grinded ON, but that seems not to bother you.) Which is why I have repeatedly stated that absent *unequivocal* consent, it doesn’t matter how this person was dancing/some generic person dances.

Speaking “generically,” as you wish to, you don’t get to decide that dancing women are implying consent for you to touch them in all sorts of new ways. This is particularly true at work events. It’s great and all if acting like Date Mike gets you all the ladies or whatever, but that doesn’t make it right.

Your tone seems unnecessary, but I guess that's what I get for posting on a law school forum

I think your stance is a little atypical, and quite stiff. Do you go out much? I can't imagine a scenario where a woman is grinding on a guy and he is expected to keep his hands anywhere but on her. Not very realistic.

I dunno. Maybe I've been in NYC too long Here, it would be truly bizarre to just stand there with your hands on your head or whatever you're suggesting while dancing closely with a girl. I guess you think a guy should yell "May I please place my hands on your hips?" Seems odd.

[pithypike]

I don't agree. I think it's important to recognize nuances of social interactions. You pretend they are clearcut and straightforward, which is clearly and objectively not the case.

But it really IS that clear when we're talking about firm events. I mean, for crying out loud, you expressly agreed with my post above! What part of your agreement are you now walking back?

There is no "nuance". A firm event is a firm event. It is the polar opposite of date night.

To answer your question, if a woman is, for example, grinding on a guy, the answer as to whether it is appropriate for that man to put his hand on her hips (something I believe you would consider groping, though it may be acceptable if said grope was consented to) is not immediately clear. Obviously

The answer is, in fact, crystal clear. If you (generic "you") dance with a woman at a firm event, and she starts grinding on you out of the blue, she is behaving inappropriately. She then runs the risk of being a sexual harasser (a rather high risk, because again, at work events folks aren't typically looking for romance, let alone intimate contact). If the grinding is unwelcome to you, she has sexually harassed, and arguably assaulted, you. If the grinding proves to be a pleasant surprise to you, then she hasn't sexually harassed you, but her behavior is still inappropriate at a work event. (The exact same would be true if the genders were reversed, or if this was two women or two men.)

If you reciprocate in turn, then while you have not sexually harassed or assaulted anyone, you have also behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately because, again, this is a work event.

This stuff isn't rocket science, seriously.

How about a non firm event? There seems to be this odd idea that, in every social situation, exactly the extent of "consent" is going to be 100% crystal clear, including in a sweaty, loud, dark club where a girl is pressing herself against you. So can you answer my question - in that context, at a club, not a firm event, would exact scope of touching has been tacitly consented to? None? Is it better to yell over the music and ask for specific parameters - perhaps ask the DJ to shut things down for a moment so you can draw up a quick agreement on the exact scope of consent?

[QContinuum]

I think your stance is a little atypical, and quite stiff. Do you go out much? I can't imagine a scenario where a woman is grinding on a guy and he is expected to keep his hands anywhere but on her. Not very realistic.

First, why the heck are we talking about all this "grinding," anyway? No one has remotely suggested that the gropee - the victim here - was "grinding" on the fired summer.

Second, I don't think Halp's stance is atypical at all. Take an extreme example. Let's say you have a topless stripper giving you a lap dance. Even in that extreme case you would not be entitled to start fondling the stripper.

I dunno. Maybe I've been in NYC too long Here, it would be truly bizarre to just stand there with your hands on your head or whatever you're suggesting while dancing closely with a girl. I guess you think a guy should yell "May I please place my hands on your hips?" Seems odd.

When the heck has Halp - or anyone else ITT - suggested that men should "stand there with your hands on your head" while dancing with a woman?

Seriously. The rule is consent to dancing doesn't equal consent to groping. It's not hard to understand. I don't believe you lack intelligence to the point where you lack the ability to comprehend the difference between acceptable touching and groping.

How about a non firm event? There seems to be this odd idea that, in every social situation, exactly the extent of "consent" is going to be 100% crystal clear, including in a sweaty, loud, dark club where a girl is pressing herself against you. So can you answer my question - in that context, at a club, not a firm event, would exact scope of touching has been tacitly consented to? None? Is it better to yell over the music and ask for specific parameters - perhaps ask the DJ to shut things down for a moment so you can draw up a quick agreement on the exact scope of consent?

"Non firm events" are neither relevant to this thread or the Legal Employment board.

[Halp]

I don't agree. I think it's important to recognize nuances of social interactions. You pretend they are clearcut and straightforward, which is clearly and objectively not the case.

But it really IS that clear when we're talking about firm events. I mean, for crying out loud, you expressly agreed with my post above! What part of your agreement are you now walking back?

There is no "nuance". A firm event is a firm event. It is the polar opposite of date night.

To answer your question, if a woman is, for example, grinding on a guy, the answer as to whether it is appropriate for that man to put his hand on her hips (something I believe you would consider groping, though it may be acceptable if said grope was consented to) is not immediately clear. Obviously

The answer is, in fact, crystal clear. If you (generic "you") dance with a woman at a firm event, and she starts grinding on you out of the blue, she is behaving inappropriately. She then runs the risk of being a sexual harasser (a rather high risk, because again, at work events folks aren't typically looking for romance, let alone intimate contact). If the grinding is unwelcome to you, she has sexually harassed, and arguably assaulted, you. If the grinding proves to be a pleasant surprise to you, then she hasn't sexually harassed you, but her behavior is still inappropriate at a work event. (The exact same would be true if the genders were reversed, or if this was two women or two men.)

If you reciprocate in turn, then while you have not sexually harassed or assaulted anyone, you have also behaved unprofessionally and inappropriately because, again, this is a work event.

This stuff isn't rocket science, seriously.

How about a non firm event? There seems to be this odd idea that, in every social situation, exactly the extent of "consent" is going to be 100% crystal clear, including in a sweaty, loud, dark club where a girl is pressing herself against you. So can you answer my question - in that context, at a club, not a firm event, would exact scope of touching has been tacitly consented to? None? Is it better to yell over the music and ask for specific parameters - perhaps ask the DJ to shut things down for a moment so you can draw up a quick agreement on the exact scope of consent?

You know what, I’d continue to go 30 rounds with you, but it’s pretty clear to me that you are deliberately moving the goalposts and just generally not discussing in good faith here. I am not going to be deposed on why I have these silly ideas that people really ought to, you know, keep their hands to themselves unless clearly told otherwise or that explicit discussions around consent might be a fine idea. I’m also *not* getting into a mud wrestle with you about Nightclub Rules for Every Situation and Why Discussing Consent is SO UNCOOL AND UNSEXY AND IMPRACTICAL and Only for People who Don’t Get Out Much.

[MarkmanPapers]

Whoever decided to bring up the “but what about a nightclub” hypo in the first place should get an award for thread derailing. This is something else.

[NotASpecialSnowflake]

And after 6 pages of guessing, a tread-derailing groping debate, and an incredibly awful ATL article, we still have no idea what happened, or what market, even what firm this happened at. And yet people are telling me I should be angry at some fired summer who may or may not even be real?

Yeah, I’ll spend my time worrying about things that I know happened, and keep enjoying the drama from this thread.

Or maybe this was all a flame by a sadistic partner to get us to forget about summer bonuses.

[Anonymous User]

It's Kirkland Chicago

[Anonymous User]

Eek, they didn't fire the openly white supremacist summer associate last summer. It must have been bad.

[oblig.lawl.ref]

This is never the hill to die on my dudes.

[miskellyjohnson]

What if the woman drugged the man, and once he was incapacitated, she forcibly took his hands and made him grope her? Things like this are not always so clear cut. The man might very well be the victim here.

And why is nobody asking the most important question: What was the woman wearing??

[LaLiLuLeLo]

The most important question is: what does Ja Rule think?

Where is Ja??

[abiglawyer]

No one knows what happened in this particular instance, and trying to determine the ethics of an unknown action seems a bit silly. I think TCR in general is that of course you should avoid even the appearance of impropriety when it comes to your coworkers, as everyone knows the consequences of even appearing to have done something wrong. This is why firm events at clubs, etc. are a bad idea, regardless of how “fun” the wraiths and husks in the partnership ranks would like to appear.

That said, many people in this thread seem to have never had an organic moment of passion in their lives, or at least argue like they haven’t, which is sad.

[letsplayball]

Wait do we have any independent confirmation of what happened, IF anything actually happened, and IF a SA actually got fired?

We are getting a little carried away here lol, this could still be a 100% troll post for all we know...

[Anonymous User]

Heard through grapevine:

Kirkland Chicago summer put his hands on the legs of a female summer under the table at a firm lunch, ran hands up her leg, someone noticed, they switched seats with the girl, and the offender was fired the next day.

[Anonymous User]

Just confirming what was said above. Heard there were two separate firings. One at Baker Botts and the second at KE Chicago.

[abiglawyer]

Unless you know to a certainty that this was nonconsensual, your sharing this information when we know ATL is monitoring the thread is unethical. Do we know the two were not in a relationship, and that the issue was just the impropriety of PDA at a firm event? OP is still trying to salvage his life and if ATL runs with the above info he may not be able to.

You can’t rely on ATL to be the ethical brake in the decision whether or not to ruin a twenty four-year-old’s life. Those people are cockroaches.

[nixy]

Um, what? Why are we rushing to assume there’s some justification for running your hands up a woman’s leg at a work lunch? The switching seats with the woman (and GETTING FIRED) all point to this being non-consensual. I cannot for the life of me imagine someone getting fired for the “impropriety” of running their hands up their girlfriend’s leg.

[jaekeem]

Unless you know to a certainty that this was nonconsensual, your sharing this information when we know ATL is monitoring the thread is unethical. Do we know the two were not in a relationship, and that the issue was just the impropriety of PDA at a firm event? OP is still trying to salvage his life and if ATL runs with the above info he may not be able to.

You can’t rely on ATL to be the ethical brake in the decision whether or not to ruin a twenty four-year-old’s life. Those people are cockroaches.

why would they fire someone over consensual PDA? I can't imagine that ever getting anything other than a verbal "knock it off"

[Atmosphere]

The word on the street is that a summer associate was fired from a V10 non-NYC office for fondling another summer.

I heard it was Baker Botts

I thought OP said biglaw?

ziiiiiing

[abiglawyer]

Um, what? Why are we rushing to assume there’s some justification for running your hands up a woman’s leg at a work lunch? The switching seats with the woman (and GETTING FIRED) all point to this being non-consensual. I cannot for the life of me imagine someone getting fired for the “impropriety” of running their hands up their girlfriend’s leg.

Ah, well, if you can’t imagine it, then I guess the issue is settled. On the strength of your conviction, let’s go ahead and ruin his life.

It’s not like we’re all lawyers, after all, in which case we would have had formal training in the difficulty of proving issues of fact and intent.

[nixy]

Um, what? Why are we rushing to assume there’s some justification for running your hands up a woman’s leg at a work lunch? The switching seats with the woman (and GETTING FIRED) all point to this being non-consensual. I cannot for the life of me imagine someone getting fired for the “impropriety” of running their hands up their girlfriend’s leg.

Ah, well, if you can’t imagine it, then I guess the issue is settled. On the strength of your conviction, let’s go ahead and ruin his life.

It’s not like we’re all lawyers, after all, in which case we would have had formal training in the difficulty of proving issues of fact and intent.

Thank you for snarky response. So you have actual concrete examples of people being fired for consensual PDA?

[ghostoftraynor]

I'm a little disappointed. With all the logical reasoning in the LSAT, you'd expect folks to be familiar with Occam's razor. What is more likely? A summer was stupid enough to grope someone midday at lunch OR DPW HR knew the Vault rankings were coming out and concocted this whole thing to overshadow their fall from grace?

I know which one I'm going to believe.

[nixy]

I'm a little disappointing. With all the logical reasoning in the LSAT, you'd expect folks to be familiar with Occam's razor. What is more likely? A summer was stupid enough to grope someone midday at lunch OR DPW HR knew the Vault rankings were coming out and concocted this whole thing to overshadow their fall from grace?

I know which one I'm going to believe.

[abiglawyer]

Um, what? Why are we rushing to assume there’s some justification for running your hands up a woman’s leg at a work lunch? The switching seats with the woman (and GETTING FIRED) all point to this being non-consensual. I cannot for the life of me imagine someone getting fired for the “impropriety” of running their hands up their girlfriend’s leg.

Ah, well, if you can’t imagine it, then I guess the issue is settled. On the strength of your conviction, let’s go ahead and ruin his life.

It’s not like we’re all lawyers, after all, in which case we would have had formal training in the difficulty of proving issues of fact and intent.

Thank you for snarky response. So you have actual concrete examples of people being fired for consensual PDA?

Yes, I remember Evidence class, where we learned that to disprove a prosecutor’s argument one must give concrete examples of an opposite scenario.

Have you ever heard that description of reading caselaw as stirring concrete with your eyelashes? That’s what trying to have an argument with you is like. That or catching the wind in a sieve.

[Man from Nantucket]

I'm a little disappointed. With all the logical reasoning in the LSAT, you'd expect folks to be familiar with Occam's razor. What is more likely? A summer was stupid enough to grope someone midday at lunch OR DPW HR knew the Vault rankings were coming out and concocted this whole thing to overshadow their fall from grace?

I know which one I'm going to believe.

I’ve heard that the DPW ankle monitors also monitor BAC and immediately alert HR if it gets too high.