I founded one of the largest worker’s rights law firms in Chicago. As a law firm that fights discrimination and stands up for worker rights, we are considered “progressive.” Before Oct. 7, 2023, I was proud that our legal team supported the progressive labor movement.
I am an American Jew with a close bond to Israel. My deceased parents and grandparents supported Israel; it is the only Jewish state and seems to be one of the few places left today that is not filled with antisemitism while also welcoming LGBTQ+ and other multicultural groups. My family celebrated our kids’ bar and bat mitzvahs there; we support charities in our homeland; and it is our favorite place to vacation.
Before Oct. 7, it was rare for anyone to tell us they were experiencing discrimination because they were Jewish. Just how rare was remarkable: At most, one person out of the thousands of people who called our office each year did so because of anti-Jewish discrimination (and this is in Chicago, where there is a sizable Jewish population). Antisemitism was not a significant issue in the American workplace—or so I thought.
But after Oct. 7, I began seeing a disturbing trend among the employees who called my law office seeking help, as a repressed antisemitic undercurrent bubbled to the surface in the American workforce. Antisemitic reports became much more frequent. I received more inquiries regarding workplace hatred of Jews in the year after Oct. 7 than in my prior 25 years of practicing law combined.
The calls largely came from work environments with commonalities: They were at so-called “progressive” workplaces that were taxpayer-funded and had experienced active pushes for diversity, equity and inclusion.
I felt powerless, emotionally drained and hurt as my adopted homeland was under attack on multiple fronts, and anti-Israeli marches surrounded my community. As a result, I decided to use my legal training to make a difference. I began taking on the cases of Jewish people who reported workplace problems related to Oct. 7.
These cases did not fit our usual business model because there was not an easily quantifiable loss. Since we often work on a contingency basis and get paid only when there is a recovery, we like litigating high-dollar cases—for example, when an executive is fired before getting her expected multimillion-dollar bonus. But how do you quantify the loss (and therefore our fee) associated with working for a boss who falsely accuses your homeland of genocide? How do you quantify the loss associated with a Jewish Zionist being forced to work with someone who chants “death to Zionists” or writes vile and false social-media posts?
A few months after Oct. 7, I filed a First Amendment, free-speech lawsuit on behalf of a 27-year veteran lawyer at the Cook County Public Defenders Office. She was ordered to take down a photo that had hung in her office for more than two decades. It showed her standing in front of an Israeli flag holding a gun during her service as a volunteer lone soldier in the Israel Defense Forces many years earlier. Other Cook County Public Defender employees displayed guns without being ordered to take them down, and the photo at issue had not caused a single problem in the 20 years that it had been displayed. So, we filed a lawsuit to let her keep the photograph displayed in her office. The flag case went “viral” in the media and was reported throughout the world.
This brings me back to my law partnership and cracks in our so-called “progressive” alliance. Immediately after filing this lawsuit, one of my partners (who happens to be Jewish) called an “emergency” partnership meeting. It was the first emergency meeting we had ever had.
That partner, along with a non-Jewish partner in the firm, claimed that some of the Jewish clients I was representing, including the public defender, were being done “in furtherance of [my] own political agenda, an agenda which we oppose.” They wanted me not to “participate in or permit any further media events.” They even claimed that my actions caused them “emotional distress” and “reputational damages,” and said that I should pay each of them $100,000.
They also wanted me to remove our law firm’s name from these cases.
My law partners’ opinions and demands were troubling. In my opinion, the progressive agenda that I have generally supported has become entirely irrational with respect to Israel. As countless commentators have recognized, Israel has done more to protect innocent lives in its defensive war than any other country in history.
Over the last year, I have pondered a number of questions about the progressive labor movement: Why aren’t they speaking up against the horrible gender violence Hamas inflicted against Israeli women and girls? Why have schools stood by and allowed harassment against Jewish faculty and students? Why are organized labor unions getting involved in international politics—at the expense of some members who disagree? And why would a progressive worker’s rights law firm not want to support a pro-Israel person who feels threatened in the workplace?
I don’t have the answers to these questions, but I hope that this behavior is caused by ignorance as opposed to something more deep-rooted like antisemitism. I still am optimistic and do not think most progressives, including my former partners, are antisemitic.
Instead, I think many progressives have stopped thinking for themselves and jumped on the anti-Israel bandwagon—like Chicago’s own mayor, Brandon Johnson, who cast the tying vote to have my city support a ceasefire that would have allowed Hamas to stay in power. My law firm and I supported his election. I sat with him at a fundraiser and like him. I think he’s a good principled person who believes in helping people, but taking sides in a manner that would help Hamas showed he was grossly ill-informed and more concerned with keeping his progressive friends happy. His vote was a mayoral stamp of approval for anti-Israel workplace bias, and the continued suffering of Palestinians who have remained oppressed under Hamas rule.
As for my own law firm, fortunately, I was the majority owner, so the demands on me not to file or publicize these cases were as effective as Chicago’s ceasefire directives to Israel. Shortly after my law partners called the emergency meeting, I decided that our values were no longer aligned. I told them I no longer wanted to be partners and eventually bought them out so I could continue my important work in peace. I wished them well and genuinely meant it; they are fine attorneys.
My hope for the progressive movement is that it will think independently and get back to its roots. As for my law firm, the day I divorced my law partners felt amazing, as I was able to continue to help deserving clients.