When the law firm Kirkland & Ellis announced in January 2021 that it was rescinding previously offered job offers to sixteen Harvard Law School students, many raised their eyebrows in confusion. How could an employer abruptly take back the job offers of college graduates after they had already accepted them?
At the core of this bizarre decision was the company’s response to a “letter of concern” written by 34 Harvard students in 2020. The letter argued that the law firm’s involvement in defending Israel prior to military operations in Palestine was ethically and morally wrong. The letter had gone viral, and the law firm felt obligated to reject the offers they had made to the applicants.
Kirkland & Ellis issued a statement explaining that it was not a reasonable expectation for the company to accept the students who had publicly expressed a desire to enact change in the firm’s decision-making. This was seen as a violation of the terms of the offer and needed to be managed appropriately.
The news sparked an uproar. Many questioned whether the decision was an act of retribution, as the students had made a critical, albeit peaceful, argument, and had never resorted to violence or aggression. The National Lawyers Guild went so far as to release a statement accusing Kirkland & Ellis of violating the rights of the applicants, effectively punishing them for their free speech.
Ultimately, the law firm relented and reinstated the offers. While the decision was cheered by activists, it did little to assuage the apprehension of future potential applicants, who might be wary of losing their jobs if they express dissenting opinions against those of their employers.
The Kirkland & Ellis incident has been used as a lesson for employers about the potential consequences of overstepping the boundaries that protect employees from punitive actions. Moving forward, employers should be mindful of their employees’ rights and should prioritize ensuring a safe working environment for those who possess different opinions, without fear of retribution.
When the law firm Kirkland & Ellis announced in January 2021 that it was rescinding previously offered job offers to sixteen Harvard Law School students, many raised their eyebrows in confusion. How could an employer abruptly take back the job offers of college graduates after they had already accepted them?
At the core of this bizarre decision was the company’s response to a “letter of concern” written by 34 Harvard students in 2020. The letter argued that the law firm’s involvement in defending Israel prior to military operations in Palestine was ethically and morally wrong. The letter had gone viral, and the law firm felt obligated to reject the offers they had made to the applicants.
Kirkland & Ellis issued a statement explaining that it was not a reasonable expectation for the company to accept the students who had publicly expressed a desire to enact change in the firm’s decision-making. This was seen as a violation of the terms of the offer and needed to be managed appropriately.
The news sparked an uproar. Many questioned whether the decision was an act of retribution, as the students had made a critical, albeit peaceful, argument, and had never resorted to violence or aggression. The National Lawyers Guild went so far as to release a statement accusing Kirkland & Ellis of violating the rights of the applicants, effectively punishing them for their free speech.
Ultimately, the law firm relented and reinstated the offers. While the decision was cheered by activists, it did little to assuage the apprehension of future potential applicants, who might be wary of losing their jobs if they express dissenting opinions against those of their employers.
The Kirkland & Ellis incident has been used as a lesson for employers about the potential consequences of overstepping the boundaries that protect employees from punitive actions. Moving forward, employers should be mindful of their employees’ rights and should prioritize ensuring a safe working environment for those who possess different opinions, without fear of retribution.
