just be aware that to other people-lawyers, baby lawyers, or otherwise-citing a ranking implies you want people to know you're intelligent, perhaps more intelligent than them. it may not be fair but thats the way the rest of the world reads it. i've found it best to watch how i characterize anything i say about my education, lest people misread my intentions.

noxiousbeast

joandidionsbitch

The attorney did not accuse Paul Hastings of firing her because of the pregnancy or in fear of a future pregnancy, nor is there any evidence that this was the motivation. I'm actually not quite sure why you jumped to that conclusion.

The situation is quite clear: The attorney was among a number of individuals (male and female) laid off during the slowdown. The issue with the miscarriage is that it was pretty damned insensitive to do the layoff so soon after a personally traumatizing event.

rackedny

Perhaps you think these issues are minor, but I think they are growing.

Plus that, people, maternity leave pay in my experience works more like disability insurance. The premium is being paid all the time. So the loss to the company of a woman on leave is just the loss of the profit she brings in with billable work. Her salary is on hold, and the insurance policy pays her the pre-agreed amount while she is on leave.

Glaven

dolbonner

Witchtit

tokyomonamour

tokyomonamour

Before I was hooked into the worst job of my life, there were many red flags. The biggest was when the Interviewer asked how well I dealt with difficult people. And then asked if I had read "The Devil Wears Prada."

Stupid me, I just thought she was sussing out my interest in pop lit. Boss woman was the living definition of "arbitrary and capricious." I lasted 6 months. One new hire witnessed a loud shouting match on his first day. And promptly walked out.

bunni hop

athenaswisdom

NOLA girl

Emails with the link to the story at ATL have already been circulating like crazy at my law school, and a lot of students (men included) have just crossed Paul Hastings off their OCI bid lists. The thing that worries me, though, is that I'm sure PH isn't the only firm like this, and we're all going to end up at places just as bad anyway.

Snowflake

WaltzingMatilda

Maritsa

Biglaw is not conducive to a personal life. The only reason to stick in it is for the money.

ChristieLove

severance is supposed to be three months?

sheeet

aspiringexpatriate

cassie-la-barraque

You have an interaction with commenters on a blog and it makes you withdraw your support for feminism? gee, what will we do without your half-assed, conditional, narrowminded support?

and why do men get sick leave when they have male-genitalia related issues? Doesn't that make them a liability? what about those famous higher stress levels for men, and other male-specific ailments?

and of course, the work patterns of firms themselves are based in a lifestyle that is more easily attained by men (often with wives at home to do things like clean up and take care of kids). Don't pretend those work patterns are some natural, set in stone. they are a matter of choice. do we know that productivity would be lower if work was more humane? What about loyal, engaged, physically and emotionally healthy employees?

ripley

"your arguments purport to accept"

blew right past you, but given your subsequent smarminess further down in your post, after this, I will not attempt to engage you further.

If you happened to see yourself in both my posts, I will point out that the second was not even replying to you and as such, retort, so be it.

With your repetitive exhortations on the Zero-Sum Game, you do strike me as the type who enjoys argument purely for argument's sake. Frankly, I have better things to do with my time.

Rooo sez BISH PLZ

You, as a member of the XY club, are simply benefiting from the cultural institutions set up to benefit your Wolffian system. Your whole paradigm is completely antithetical to equality for the XX set.

In a nutshell, fuck your empathy. It's time the cultural paradigm shifts and if it means a little ass kicking along the way so be it. Don't forget that women make up a large part of the consumer and voter base. When we realize our market/political power we will capitalize on that. May-be we need a little gorilla capitalism of our own.

goodcheapfun

With a revolving door of cheap disposable labor. Oh yah, that's called outsourcing. We actually have labor laws so douches like you can't fuck over the average worker (or in this case the average woman).

"In times where we must choose, the board's responsibility is primarily to stockholders;".

Who want to maximize profits (by any means necessary BITCHES). Oh, but what a world it would be if you could maximize profits without fucking over your work force. But, you must choose, eh?

"HR policy is a realization of stockholder priorities."

Oh, revolt mulls over in my mind. How would your shitty stockholders fare if a strike were at hand. I love unions :).

"The original argument is and remains that one's personal life applies on the job and people with personal problems are the first out when there are layoffs afoot; if you work in America, there is a chance they probably are."

Gorilla fucking capitalism. I believe that we have government to protect the average citizens from shit heads, and lobbyists, such as yourself. If the average voter paid more attention to their own lives, and less to the pulpit and marketers, change might be afoot.

"Not to get cute..."

I'm thinking in any context this is highly unlikely (flame away).

goodcheapfun

goodcheapfun

Actually, we in the US only have to wait out another couple of decades before the native populations of Europe as a whole begin to die out with no replacement from immigration. We are the only advanced nation with a growing population when factoring in immigration, therefore our economy can continue to grow in the face of adversity. I link for your reading:

[www.foreignaffairs.org]

(BTW China can't call in her debt since if they did their economies would collapse as well...who do you think buys all their crap?)

As for @ADismalScience:

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with you. Since you are espousing these beliefs, and seem to be in a position of management within a corporate enterprise, I can only feel sorry for the poor schmucks that are working for you. Come in 5 minutes late, despite working hours over the night before? Fired! Dare to take a day off work to go to the doctor or take care of your family? Fired! The coldhearted ruthlessness of what you are describing is what is wrong with the average American for-profit enterprise. They don't realize happy employees are productive employees, that a little human emotion and caring can go a long way to cementing a loyal worker. But, I forgot: the for-profits don't care about loyalty since they won't be loya to their workers, therefore their workers are just cogs to be replaced. Well-educated cogs, but cogs nonetheless.

I'm so glad I got out of the corporate world and went to work for my state government in higher education, where my superiors care about me and I feel like I'm giving back to my community.

spinal77

You're going down a road that I'm not sure I can stop you from going down here, but just to clarify a few things here:

1.) I never made any statement indicated that I am in agreement with American social, corporate, judicial, or economic policy. Please try to factualize your commentary. At the very least, don't attribute false positions to me by making inadequate and prejudicial assumptions.

2.) We are no closer to any resolution of the original argument I made with respect to the role personal issues play in employment.

3.) I have never once insulted the character or disposition of anyone, in agreement or otherwise, in this discussion. I understand that my position may seem controversial - especially on a site that prides itself on championing women's rights - but I was hoping that you ladies might exceed your reputations.

ADismalScience

"Overzealous" with respect to what? If there was a union rule that the tuition was to be paid, overzealous in breaking the rule?

Was there some other ordinance somewhere that contradicted the union rule? Or was the union rule an unwritten one? Or something that needed to be annually renewed or voted on or something that wasn't?

Rooo sez BISH PLZ

However, as long as the Horatio Alger myth continues to exist, they will

1) continue to believe they are usually invulnerable (which they usually are in the situation someone pointed out upthread where the man with the heart attack has had his secretary hold his job together);

2) continue to believe our economic system such as it is is flawless (at least until Asia calls in all the currency debts);

3) not go without considerable kicking and screaming.

Rooo sez BISH PLZ

Well, arguably, you're not either, because your arguments purport to accept the current American legal and business/employment systems as impartial, just, fair, and right, and, moreover, possibly the only way that you foresee that such employment situations can function optimally.

Which, arguably, is your right.

Just don't pretend to be without prejudice as a result.

Rooo sez BISH PLZ

jadzia

Lymed

Which I understand to a point. Aren't we all human though? Doesn't everyone go through a hard time at one time or another???

Sheer Debauchery

The bosses immediately began to treat me differently. No assignments thereafter. It's a good thing I'm insured through my husband.

Sheer Debauchery

You sustain the largest possible organization by keeping costs low and productivity high. In times where we must choose, the board's responsibility is primarily to stockholders; HR policy is a realization of stockholder priorities. This concept is in sharp relief in uncertain or challenging environments. The original argument is and remains that one's personal life applies on the job and people with personal problems are the first out when there are layoffs afoot; if you work in America, there is a chance they probably are.

Not to get cute, but I'm hardly tearing Jurgis's arm off here.

ADismalScience

FatBottomedGirl

You're totally right -- it's been hard for me to get and stay pregnant, and ultimately this is just a job. I don't think I'm going to get fired, but I don't think I'm getting much of a bonus or ever becoming partner. I plan on being in house or in the govt before that becomes an issue anyway. I have been documenting stuff and bouncing "hypotheticals" (wink wink) off a good friend who is an employment lawyer.

@J.D.Regent:

I see myself as more Norma Rae than Cesar Chavez...I'm constitutionally incapable of fasting even when not up the stick, but I can still probably manage to haul my ass up onto a conference room table with "UNION" scratched on the back of a legal pad.

Maritsa

Benevolent_Dictatrix

The women at lower levels return from FMLA leave to find that their duties have been adjusted to a point where no sane person, let alone a parent with a young child, could manage them, and they're steadily tortured until they resign or are fired for underperformance. (And then, just as a little bonus, they're bad-mouthed for "taking advantage" of leave benefits.) And it's not just babies - a co-worker was fired in much the same way shortly after returning to work from the leave of absence recommended by her psychiatrist after her teenage son was killed in a car wreck. Meanwhile the men in senior admin who have heart attacks etc. return to find their jobs intact, mostly because their secretaries are already accustomed to taking up all the slack.

GraspsAtStraws

thatgirlinnewyork

Oh No I Di'n't.

I am with JD Regent...lawyers need unions just like every other group of workers!

Benevolent_Dictatrix

I agree with you, wait as long as you can to tell. I'm 5 months though, and there's no hiding it, and hasn't been for about two months. I showed early.

Maritsa

At what point is it okay to fire a shitty employee who happens to be ill or pregnant or recently pregnant (etc)?

I wonder about this a lot and honestly see both sides.

I'm sure that in a lot of these stories people are sharing people got fucked over (or there were clearly things said that indicated that) but, not knowing the full story in some of these cases, I can't help but wonder if some (perhaps small number) of these firings were for bad employees who happened to pregnant or whatever.

A lot of people are talking about the moral responsibility of a company and, while I agree that it wouldn't hurt a lot of companies to be more forgiving/accomodating/understanding, does they really have a moral obligation to completely excuse one's job performance just because it would be the more humane thing to do?

Working at a really understanding, really small company, i'm quite torn.

Oh No I Di'n't.

thatgirlinnewyork

J.D.Regent

I'm in. Because I generally agree, and because I'm currently dealing with this. The head of my practice group has been a dick to me -- well, MORE of a dick to me -- since I announced my pregnancy, including recently telling another associate that he wasn't putting me on a case because I'm going on maternity leave (in four months!). This, after he bitched at me less than a month ago for my hours being low. One might ask how my not-really-all-that-low hours are to improve if I don't get new cases.

In contrast, when my blue-collar dad's employer (a university that gave free tuition to employees' kids) informed him that my sister's tuition would no longer be paid, his union printed up signs and was ready to protest the next day. All of a sudden someone in the administration claimed "someone" had been "overzealous" and of course her tuition would be paid!

Maritsa

SukumariCorvus

LaFemme

J.D.Regent

siren77

thatgirlinnewyork

I duly followed protocol for requesting additional time off - Umm, I just HAD A BABY could you spot me a couple more weeks to heal!!?! Yeah, that's a big fat no. UNBELIEVABLE. But then again, did I really want to go back to work for a company that wouldn't even afford an employee the courtesy of recovery time?

Joggingspillsmymartini

This whole employers knowing about miscarriages thing confuses me. Don't most miscarriages happen in the first trimester? Don't most women wait until after the first trimester to let people know they're pregnant? I've never been pregnant, but I wouldn't want to tell people until it was necessary and I wouldn't want my co-workers to know if I miscarried. I'm not criticising this women, I just don't understand why you'd share so much about your personal life with your superiors unless you were personal, outside of work friends.

clevernamehere

Personally? Sure! I have fired good people over the last few months and don't feel great about it.

From a business perspective? No! There is absolutely no social contract between employer and employee.

You have to reconcile those two inputs. In these times, the bottom line is going to be more important than being the boss you'd like to be. After all, if I can't cut costs then my family doesn't eat either. Life is a limited-resources problem.

ADismalScience

J.D.Regent

I spent a couple of days in the hospital last year for food poisoning, and it was sadly so awesome. I had a bendy bed, leg massagers, food delivered, neverending sleep, cable TV to myself, and no real obligation to check my blackberry (though it was with me). I could have lived without the awfulness that landed me there, but in the end, it was a very nice vacation.

kungfutoday

ilikenoise

saralegal21

kikichanelconspiracy

It's shabby, but unfortunately not uncommon, for this to happen in Biglaw when the market turns bad and they want to shed some associates. The firms doing this aren't fooling anyone, so you wonder why they can't just be honest about it.

And, yeah, nothing in the email suggests she was fired because of her desire to get pregnant. As others have said, big law firms generally don't fire you for getting pregnant -- the just make you absolutely miserable about parenting until you leave or reconcile yourself to never seeing your kids. Don't leave for the labor room without your Blackberry.

That said, PH's timing and handling of the matter was atrocious. Childish lawyer-bashing aside, that was pretty harsh, even for Biglaw.

The A-Bomb

Obviously you maximize profit within the legal framework. I'm not suggesting that anybody violate laws; rather, I'm suggesting that employers use the information freely provided to them.

ADismalScience

It wouldn't surprise me if any of those things happened. We are not in an "employee loyalty" portion of the economic cycle in banking, construction, autowork, etc.. Perceptions tend to change; industries go through periods where talent is scarce or plentiful. With all the knowledge-worker layoffs, there is an embarrassment of educated men and women excited to do ANY job right now. With respect to case-based things, that's pretty much what I was saying earlier: quality workers will get the breaks that an average-to-bad employee won't. Employment is granular, and managers are there because they have some degree of discretion and savvy with such matters.

@NOLAgirl:

Don't confuse an argument with the arguer. I'd ask you to absolve me of any personal guilt for expressing these thoughts, and address the arguments instead of the person making them.

ADismalScience

Your duty to shareholders is not to maximize profit. There are a million things you can do in the short term to maximize profit that have legal consequences or are short-lived or are unethical. You could sell defective products to poor third world countries to make a profit, but you aren't going to. You could steal customer info from your competitors, but you won't. You could make up sham companies and move money around to give a profit on paper.

Yes, some labor costs are higher than others. But your labor costs shouldn't be that tight...

kungfutoday

ilikenoise

NOLA girl

AFever

You're asking employers to ignore things that clearly affect the function of their business because you're having a hard time related to your reproductive capabilities. I can understand that it's not necessarily fair, and I sympathize. But I really think this is a point where feminism ceases to be about equality and more about receiving special dispensation, which is where I cease my suppport.

I have a responsibility to my shareholders to maximize profits. Labor is always my biggest expense. The consequences are obvious: occassionally, you have to do things you really don't want to do to employees that maybe aren't as important. I don't care if you have a baby, a tumor, a drug habit, or simple laziness: if you can't come to work, you're a big fat sucking sound when I meet with my superiors.

ADismalScience

porkchop2000

NOLA girl

blackbirdfly

I'm aware of why the law exists; I'm not disputing that it exists or that its purpose is not noble. I'm simply stating that, as an employer, it's better for me to know things than to not know them. If you don't want to put things out there, that's fine - those are your rights, apply them when you see fit. I'm just laying out the argument from the employer's perspective (so stop attacking me personally). When you are free from all prejudice you are welcome to judge me.

A few facts, though, completely free of judgement:

1.) Maternity leave is more expensive than no maternity leave. I am paying you and you are not at work. There is absolutely no way for you to mitigate this risk short of tearing out your uterus in your cubicle. It's not good or bad; it's life.

2.) Marriage has 0 to do with the likelihood of having to pay maternity leave. Recent marriage, however, does; those are just the stats.

3.) Personal realities play a role in your employment status, you will never win most lawsuits unless abuses were flagrant and well-documented, and the worse the economy gets, the less discretion employers will have.

ADismalScience

kungfutoday

NOLA girl

PhillyLass

LitiGrrl30

Obvi the transformation into douche/asshole has already begun. What can I say.

AFever

J.D.Regent

NOLA girl

@AFever: Honestly, though, it wasn't the Estrich, it was the "T20." Identifying your law school by tier or whatever is the equivalent of terming yourself a "cool kid." Even if you didn't mean it that way, just not precisely cool.

PilgrimSoul

J.D.Regent

Final

No, you have it really good.

@J.D.Regent: @LadyNo Fondles Sweaters:

It's definitely illegal to ask. It's not illegal to disclose - most people will tell you all about their private lives in a casual interview. I have yet to see someone take off their wedding ring before coming into my office. Employers thrive on that data when they can get it.

Obviously I personally don't ask any of the illegal questions intentionally - HR is always eager to police that kind of thing - but I've definitely answered it and/or seen/heard about it being asked.

ADismalScience

I also stand by the fact that law firms don't generally actively get rid of women (or women with children) - they just don't promote them or foster any kind of development or they set expectations that are unreasonably high. This woman's desire to have kids just helped get her on the list, but it probably wasn't the only reason she was there. Law firms need women - and I've been told in more that one job interview that I had a better chance of making partner because I am a woman... Um, thanks.

kungfutoday

After my three-week maternity leave? A surprise mid-year "review" where they told me I would have to make up the hours I had missed, and a public humiliation at a women attorneys' event where I was told that "the firm has good reasons for not promoting mothers." I left six weeks later, pretty much destroying my career. And am STILL depressed about the whole fiasco, because I've wanted to be a lawyer literally since I was a little kid.

jadzia

marykick

lincolnplacelovesyou

J.D.Regent

As a recovering lawyer, all I can say is go to i-banking if you want money, or straight-up operations if you want a career. In-house counsel (been there, too) is easier hours, but you're just a G&A grunt.

lincolnplacelovesyou

the question is whether similarly situated associates who aren't trying to procreate were fired for having similar performances. who knows. this memo doesn't say and you all don't know either.

all you big firm lawyers (i'm a former one -- a defense litigator even -- now practicing public law) seem to have adopted your clients' point of view. i know that while i was embedded with those motherfuckers I probably would have spouted this same shit. but gender discrimination is illegal and thank god it is.

wurly

my experience was that the men were friendly, helpful and honest to all the summer associates. the women however were sweet as pie to the male summers, but manipulative, catty and deceitful to the females. the women did not appear interested at all in mentoring young hires, and would actively stonewall you if they felt you were "competition." it was truly disheartening.

suffice to say, i won't be returning. pass the ramen, thank you very much.

noxiousbeast

I get the feeling that you would be OK with firing somebody for the possibility of poor performance, and that would suck.

LadyNo Fondles Sweaters

luxylux

J.D.Regent

I now see that there are not a lot of bosses like that.

dirtybee says bee yourself!

LadyNo Fondles Sweaters

Most people will tell you such things without a second thought as to the legality of it. In an interview, it's my responsibility to gain as much information as I possibly can without crossing the line. You're never allowed to officially ASK such questions, but you almost never have to.

ADismalScience

lolacat(ΩΜ)

@LadyNo Fondles Sweaters: thank you. the "married" thing alarmed me too.

J.D.Regent

what PH did was crappy and proves how heartless biglaw is (big suprise) but do you even think more than a handful of those partners knew about the miscarriage? and you want to know why? because the DON'T care - THAT is what is so crappy. PH laid off this woman 6 days after a miscarriage, not becasue of it or her potential to get pregnant agian, because they DON'T CARE about the people who work for them. they really don't...

labelsdown

LadyNo Fondles Sweaters

lolacat(ΩΜ)

BOO_BOO_HOFF

LitiGrrl30

Personal problems all over the map cause people to lose jobs - divorce, drugs, alcoholism, kids, depression, etc. They almost always show up in the work. A miscarriage is no different. I mean, it's terrible, but of COURSE that's going to affect your work. If you aren't important enough for the business to keep around in spite of your baggage in these trouble times, you're goig to get canned.

As for personal questions, general ones. Most interviewers try to get a feel for "you." What hobbies do you have? Ya married? Chit-chat kind of stuff that can be really useful in judging someone and most will let slip easily. Obviously you don't have to answer every question, but you look for obvious red flags and try to get a holistic impression. It's not exactly asking if you're wearing a thong or have kids or anything.

ADismalScience

LitiGrrl30

BTW, new lawyers-to-be, I work for a great firm now. Not everyone is a bad guy.

NOLA girl

not that i'm bitter about law school and one exam away from graduation or anything...

FourthWaveBaby

Like the grey-haired pony-tail who does big-time pro-bono work.

They never introduce you to the bitter, alchoholic divorcees with fertility problems, do they?

lolacat(ΩΜ)

info*ninja

blackbirdfly

@J.D.Regent:
I wasn't trying to be "prestigious," I was trying to make a point, perhaps badly, about how this might affect PH's rep among people they may want to hire. The Susan Estich name-drop may have been gratituous in retrospect, but I just finished a semester of her telling us nothing but how hard life is going to suck when we graduate. Thus, while this should have been shocking, it was just more evidence that she was right. Sucks.

AFever

ginger_t

J.D.Regent

generally, PH has been marked as one to watch with regards to associate lay-offs. ATL has covered biglaw lay-offs in an ongoing manner over the last year, as indicative of the recession's impact on the legal market. i'm assuming that's the context for blackbirdfly's comment.

on day 1 of 1L year, my contracts prof had us repeat back to her the following words of warning: "they can fire you for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason at all." over and over again until she felt we sufficiently grasped the concept of employment at will.

noxiousbeast

Of course when I took the discrimination courses for my company this exact situation was brought up. They said it's not illegal now but :
1 It still stinks
2 It maybe illegal after we get sued.
3 don't be an asshole

Techguy1138

It's not just the big boys, I have seen female candidates weeded out for positions b/c they were not single and childless.

BrutallyHonestBabes

The employer's position is that she represents a huge risk now that she's had a miscarriage. And it's TRUE - emotional distress that severe will cause anyone's productivity to plummet, as well as the productivity of those around you. The employer also contends she's likely to try again soon, and it's true! And it will mean another extensive period of downtime.

Do I agree with this practice? Depends. I would probably do this to an employee that I felt wasn't very good or was a liability anyway. Why? Because it's easy, I won't lose the lawsuit, and there are real liabilities incurred by keeping a person on. Does this happen to really valuable, beloved employees? I don't see how it's possible. We're missing her performance context.

Is it morally wrong? I'm not sure. We fire people all the time for problems at home that have a chance to manifest themselves in the workplace like this. It's the whole reason you get asked about your personal life during a job interview. This isn't really an issue specific to women, although the pregnancy context makes it unique to them.

ADismalScience

Breamworthy

Lizawithazee

And please do not interpret this as a defense of what the firm did at all. Trust me, I am NOT a fan of biglaw but the situation is what it is...

labelsdown

dirtybee says bee yourself!

J.D.Regent

asketchymess

Further, law firms are sensitive to diversity, not because they believe in it, but because it is necessary for recruiting and a certain level of diversity is mandated by many high-profile clients (Wal-Mart being one). Therefore, law firms won't simply fire female associates willy-nilly for having the ability to breed. In fact, they need women in counsel and partnership roles in order to be competitive for recruiting and client development - they just don't want the ones that they do have to breed (or if they breed, to raise them).

kungfutoday

J.D.Regent

dirtybee says bee yourself!

Jezebabe

Good on her. This will not help their Vault rating... heh.

lolacat(ΩΜ)

@Techguy1138: Is that supposed to be funny?

blackbirdfly

x[www.reaganenvelope.com]

lolacat(ΩΜ)