Jurors Told That Law Firm Cut Associate’s Pay Due to Pregnancy

deebs
Aug 15, 2008 8:01 AM CST

Well, I have seen this happen in my old firm.  The associate became pregnant, and then told her supervisor that she could not participate in a PI deposition as it upset her and the in utero baby.  She did not have her pay cut, but she did quit after her maternity leave.

Jen DC
Aug 15, 2008 10:17 AM CST

What? People haven’t figured out that firm culture is antithetical to having a fulfilling family life? (And by “fulfilling,” I mean one in which women (since the article is about women) take care of their own children, i.e., feed them, clothe them, bathe them themselves as opposed to farming it out to a nanny.)

Americans need to get over this idea that you can have anything you want without sacrificing anything. If you want to be an attentive parent, you might have to give up that partnership, ladies. Period. Yes, there are firms with flexibility that allow you to do all these time sharing/management things, but 99% of the firms are old school.

I am also not saying that things couldn’t be better, but then you get into changing society mores, such as having fathers take as much of a professional hit as a mother might when the kid comes. Can you really convince your lawyer husband to be the one to stay home with Jr.?

Michael Dean
Aug 15, 2008 11:10 AM CST

Huh, I didn’t realize that popping out kidney stones was similar to carrying a baby and giving birth.  I’m a freaking hero, then.  My one kidney stone took about 4 hours and a couple of vicodin to get rid of.  I missed about 45 minutes of work that day getting my prescription.

I’d say the firm was pretty sympathetic by only cutting her pay to $77k if she wasn’t doing the work.  Jen’s right; you can’t have the partnership and the baby together without sacrificing something.  Maybe she should have convinced her hubby to quit his job and raise the kid instead of her quitting her job.

RV
Aug 15, 2008 12:00 PM CST

What is with all of the emotional responses to these types of articles? They never have enough facts to really form an educated opinion. Just two quick points:

(1) law firms may be “old school” but there are maternity leave and anti discrimination laws out there that they have to follow like any other employer. Until some major biological changes occur, women are still the only ones who can carry and give birth to children, so the laws about maternity leave and discrimination appear to reflect a societal choice to allow humans in the US to procreate without barring most women from the workplace.

(2) Maternity (or parental) leave does not equal “doing less work.” If you are not doing the same work before and after leave (or while pregnant vs not pregnant) that is a different issue. Are there people who use it as an excuse to slack off? Probably. Are there women who truly have troublesome pregnancies? Definitely. But those issues should be dealt with in a professional manner. One should not assume one of the former associates in the article had her pay cut unfairly; one should also not assume that working less while pregnant/after maternity leave is due to a decline in work ethic.

I’m grateful that my firm is very flexible and will allow me to truly have a good balance. I love my career and I do good work. I also understand sometimes we can’t “have it all.” However, the prejudices on both sides of the fence make it harder for those people who are truly working hard to balance their lives.

As lawyers, I think we should always be able to at least see the other side’s (sides’) point(s) of view, even if we don’t agree.  An effort in that direction would make for much more informed debates, in my opinion.

old school
Aug 15, 2008 12:44 PM CST

Re: Ms. Barshevsky post #4 and 6:  The word prejudiced is an adjective meaning preference or partiality.  Hence, you cannot “get prejudiced against.”  Poor grammar and mediocre writing only disadvantage your feminist cause.  Posting in all caps for emphasis will not help.

Rick
Aug 15, 2008 12:56 PM CST

Ellen, you’re leaving an important part of your slogan off:  Equal Opportunity means “Equal Work deserves Equal Pay.”  Equal Opportunity means you have the right and the option to EARN equal pay, not that you have the right to equal pay for showing up.

If He and She both go to the recycling center with the same 500 aluminum cans, they should both leave with the same amount of cash.

THAT is called Equal Opportunity.

IF (and the facts are not yet settled, so I won’t take sides) she was in fact “shirking” due to her pregnancy (or for any reason), a pay cut is appropriate.

IF the firm is concocting a story about decreased workload, shirking, bad attitude, etc., because they wanted to push her out for mommy-tracking, that’s illegal.  (Mommy-tracking notwithstanding, pregnancy is a medical condition as a matter of law, however voluntary it may be.)

But, on a basic level, I do agree with those who point to a certain level of maturity in recognizing that you cannot have it all in life.  We all make decisions, set priorities.

You want a loyal, loving partner?  You may have to commit to monogamy.  You want to give your monogamy ‘teeth,’ you may have to deal with the legal ramifications and obligations of marriage.

You want kids?  You may have to negotiate with your partner about how the parenting methodologies the two of you choose will affect your career(s) and other life choices (vacation plans, retirement, etc.).

As to Ellen’s comment that “men get us pregnant, they should be sympathetic,” it sounds like you may have grounds for a rape case, assuming that the man who “got you pregnant” did so without your consent and willing participation.  Regrets about foregoing the condom are the reason for the Morning After Pill.  Decisions, choices, and priorities.

Yes, firm values may be old-fashioned, but it IS possible to have a firm that is progressive and makes a woman partner, even though she works only 30 hours a week and splits parenting duties with her husband.

That’s called creativity.

But you can be sure she will get a prorated bonus or profit sharing payment to reflect the fact that she’s making a proportionately lower contribution to the firm’s success.

That’s called fair.

Progressive or old-school, a law firm IS a business, and it’s about people working [albeit presumably guided by valid principles] to earn money.  “Profession” even when it’s a noble one, just means it’s *intellectual* capital.  But it’s Capitalism all the same.

Rick Rutledge
Aug 15, 2008 1:06 PM CST

(And as sure as you correct someone’s typo, you’ll have one in your own response.  “All of US who’ve…”)

Jim Eddington
Aug 15, 2008 1:09 PM CST

@ Rick Rutledge: As Homer Simpson would say, “Sweet Merciful Crap!!!” Kinda like your “All of use” (sic).  Good catch, heh heh.

Richard DeBruin
Aug 15, 2008 3:10 PM CST

We must admit that some of the womens’ characterizations are extreme, but the point remains that women should not be prejudiced by virtue of their status as females.  To that extent I agree with Ms. Barshevsky and the others.  However, it is also true that men ought not be prejudiced more than is legally mandated by fiat; hence the men who want time off to rear children should be given equal time off.  As to what is done over the pond, I cannot comment; however, I do remember a number of my collegues on the continent laughing at us Yanks because of our primitive resources programs.  My only comment here was that we do a lot better with our time than they do with their vacation time.

Bill Weddington
Aug 15, 2008 3:48 PM CST

#18 seems like a disgruntled sort; probably didn’t pass the bar.  Learn to live with us, if you want to be one of us.  As for Mr. Eddington, we must learn to work together with our women legal brethren, and respect them for their differences.  After all, we can’t have a firm run only with men and with men associates these days.  You must learn to go with the flow; we’re no longer in the 1950’s where women could only work as secretaries.  In fact, there are more competent women attorneys out there than ever before; we must learn to tap this valuable resource.

dbgesq
Aug 15, 2008 7:59 PM CST

I see pregnancy and maternity leave as just a cost of doing business; while on the surface, I can sympathize with the notion that businesses shouldn’t “have to” bear the costs and decreased productivity attendant thereto, the bottom line is that it’s no different than any other illness or personal furlough from work that people take to. 

Arguably, it is the women who are intelligent, motivated and resourceful enough to become attorneys in the first place that should not have to face roadblocks in terms of having and rearing their children while still entertaining a fulfilling and productive career. 

I think a lot of the disdain for the business costs flowing from pregnancy and maternity leave are colored by sexism; the line of thinking automatically becomes one of “well WOMEN can’t have it all….” rather than, “well, the MAN can’t have it all,” because after all, how likely is it that the male will be the one to take primary responsibility for the offspring after its birth?

I think the whole point for many women, myself included, is that we don’t WANT to have it all.  Heck, if men would step up and do half of what we do in the domestic sphere—including taking care of yourselves :-)—a lot of us would be much happier!  And we’d have more time to devote to those dang billables, too.

Jim Eddington
Aug 17, 2008 4:42 AM CST

@22 eh: Exactly. It IS a numbers game. That’s the whole point. Yet women who don’t make their hours because they choose to have babies complain that they are being discriminated against because they are women—as if it were impossible that reduced billables were to blame. It doesn’t matter the gender, all that matters is the numbers on the page.

Sue
Aug 18, 2008 2:34 PM CST

Well put, Houston Lawyer.

Jim Eddington
Aug 18, 2008 6:17 PM CST

Without commenting on the flawed analogy, male associates who take time off to serve in the military SHOULD have their pay cut. Much like females who choose to work less to deal with family issues, both actions are a CHOICE. The male associate should be off the partner track as well. Why is it so hard for some of you people to understand that equal treatment does not mean making allowances solely on the basis of gender? If you want to devote 90 hours a week to your kids, or 90 hours a week to the military, have at it. But don’t expect to paid as much as someone who devotes those same hours to billables. What part of that do some of you not understand?

Jim Eddington
Aug 19, 2008 9:46 AM CST

@ 28, dbone: Ummmm, that really wasn’t the point, as I noted when I said “without commenting on the flawed analogy.” You see, that law precludes employers from cutting pay to SOLDIERS, i.e., it’s gender neutral. That, once again, is the WHOLE POINT of this discussion. Equal opportunity does not consist of treating either gender differently, REGARDLESS of the personal choices people choose to make. You want to be a public interest lawyer? Go nuts, but don’t expect to be paid the same as a partner in Baker’s litigation department. Are you a lawyer in Baker’s litigation department and want to cut your billables to raise your family? Go nuts, but don’t expect to paid the same as your officemate that bills 30% more hours than you do. Again, why is that so hard for some of you to understand? This is really really simple stuff here.