Lawyer Who Says She Was Chastised for Not Being Sweet Is Allowed to Sue

Filk Bahr
Aug 5, 2008 7:32 AM CST

Yes, it is likely case of discrimination on basis of gender.

Flag this comment

reader
Aug 6, 2008 11:29 AM CST

This attorney sounds like an unpleasant person to work with. But no male attorney would EVER be criticized for being “not sweet enough.” For that matter, no male of any profession would ever be accused of that. Except maybe a hairstylist.

Flag this comment

C
Aug 7, 2008 2:26 PM CST

Larry,

Because it’s based on the assumption that if you’re a white male you can’t be discriminated against.  However, when they do discriminate they slap a label on it and call it affirmative action.  So quit being a sexist just accept the fact that you and every other man is part of a widespread, systemic and pervaisve problem.  Maybe she’ll get a judge who’s “sweet” and sympathetic.

Flag this comment

silencedogood
Aug 8, 2008 6:14 AM CST

I think many of you would take a different view if you substituted “you are not being sweet” with “you are being an a-hole”.  How many org’s have a “no a-hole” policy? 

So does this whole case really come down to the choice to use the word “sweet”?  If so, can I please get the official P.C. list of words which are assigned to various groups so I don’t inadvertantly run afoul of them?

Flag this comment

Lysander
Aug 8, 2008 6:27 AM CST

A male probably wouldn’t be criticized for not being “sweet” enough, but he might be criticized for being overly aggressive, abrasive, or harsh. Any lawyer who has trouble getting along with colleagues or clients may need to be criticized. I think we all need to be a little less thin-skinned, accept criticism with a little more humility, and stop looking for a lawsuit at the drop of a hat. It sounds as if this woman was not being a very effective lawyer, so now she’s going to make the firm pay for it. She should get over it and figure out how to get along with people better.

Flag this comment

Jade
Aug 8, 2008 6:50 AM CST

Isn’t it common knowledge that if people don’t like you, then you won’t make partner? That’s true if you’re female OR male.

Flag this comment

Hadley V. Baxendale
Aug 8, 2008 7:04 AM CST

A Federal case over a poor choice of words?  It appears that the plaintiff acted in an overearing manner to a subordinate.  The partner was right to correct her.  What if the firm were sued by the subordinate for the associate’s abusive behavior?

Flag this comment

Sally
Aug 8, 2008 7:35 AM CST

I’ve been through this - the staff at my firm were guided by the partners to be of the view that, as between men and women, the men came first. It was reflected in the way that secretarial support was allocated, the tone of voice used by the partners in speaking to the women associates, and the fact that partners would often observe a secretary blowing off a female associate and take no action. For example, one member of the staff routinely told me that no conference rooms were available, but if I had my junior male associate call for a room moments afterwards, suddenly there would be a wide choice available. Similarly, our word processing department would routinely fail to complete my work, saying they had insufficient staff to handle it, but if I had my junior male associate submit it - even without reserving time in advance - it was routinely completed without incident. At first, I was bewildered by this - it never occurred to me that, in the late 1990’s, this would be an issue. So the problem wasn’t that I was angry or abrasive. I do know now, having spoken to the same people from a different perspective, that they found me arrogant simply for thinking I was entitled to a conference room when I had clients coming in. Later, of course, when I realized what was going on and that the partners weren’t going to lift a finger to help me - and in fact, said that the reason for the problem must be that I wasn’t “nice” - I did get angry. Then, I admit, I wasn’t “sweet”; I came to the conclusion that I could get my job done, or I could have all the staff think I was “nice”, and since their behavior was unfair, I was not so worried about them liking me so I’d get my job done. Nonetheless, this is an impossible position to be in. At one point, our head of secretarial services, the person who was responsible for instructing the staff on what their jobs were and how to do it, explained to me that she fully sympathized with staff who didn’t want to work for women, because after all, they shouldn’t have to do menial work for women. I repeated this to the supervising partner; he thought it was funny, and did not recognize at all the pervasive impact this was having on the women lawyers trying to get their work done (or the fact that I was the only female associate in my class by the 5th year, the only one not smart enough to get out).

I was lucky; for a variety of reasons, I made it through and made partner, despite a constant stream of complaints from support staff that I wasn’t “nice” and partners who took those complaints on board without once looking into whether there was any reason that I might have had to exert pressure in order to get the staff to do their jobs in order to permit me to do mine. I’ve now been a partner for about 8 years. A year or so ago, the head of our office staff told me that the staff thought I was so much nicer now, and thought it was great how much I’ve changed. I told her that I could be a lot nicer now that the staff did not tell me to f*** off every time I asked them to do their jobs. She was startled, but after we talked about it a while (we get along pretty well), she “got it”, and I’ve actually seen further improvement. One of the things I’ve focused on as a partner is advocating for women when they get stuck in these positions. Women are often still faced with the choice between being “nice” and getting the support that every white guy expects to get, and gets, just by walking into a room.

Note that I’m not accusing all the white guys of causing this problem, though the inability to see it when it happens does permit it to continue. But the problem here may well not be a poor choice of words. This may be just a relatively concrete example of the kind of bind I was in for all the years I was working as an associate - if I was “nice”, I could not get my work done, so I was ineffective as a lawyer. If I was not “nice”, I was criticized for not being nice. And even if I was “nice” by any standard applied to any of my male colleagues, it was still perceived as “not nice” because it was considered “not nice” for me to assume that my work would be given the same priority as that of my male colleagues.

Yes - if people don’t like you, you won’t make partner and that’s life. But if the reason they don’t like you is because they impose different standards on you and handicap you for reasons based on your gender, that can be discrimination.

Like most serious issues, these situations don’t lend themselves to sound bites, which makes them unfortunate blog topics. I don’t know who’s right in this case, but I suspect this lawyer’s situation is similar to what mine was, and if that’s the case, there is discrimination here.

Flag this comment

Melissa
Aug 8, 2008 7:38 AM CST

Thank you Jenny for pointing out what all of us lawyers should have noted instead of being so quick to judge…

Flag this comment

John P. Horan
Aug 8, 2008 8:28 AM CST

It costs one nothing to be kind and respectful.  A young lawyer should not act like a jerk.  If a young lawyer is being a jerk, a partner should correct the behavior in a kind and respectful manner.  These basic rules apply to partners and associates of both sexes.

Flag this comment

DCEsq.
Aug 8, 2008 8:32 AM CST

What is a “jerk”?  It seems to be to be a rather vague concept, like “justice,” and would benefit more from - oh I don’t know - a hypothetical example.  As lawyers we are, after all, paid by the word.  Well, not really but one may get my point.

Flag this comment

Stevie B
Aug 8, 2008 8:56 AM CST

Reminds me of when I attempted to get a US based MD or DO on top of my JD and MSEE.  An incident when I should have sued - but did not, and since I ended up going overseas find I cant get a residency.
Interview at a school in California:
“What do we have here, are you a professional student?”

Flag this comment

Frankie Hollywood
Aug 8, 2008 9:07 AM CST

What exactly did the male partner say?  The article doesn’t state.  Did he state, “You need to speak more sweetly” or did the female say, “So, you want me to speak more sweetly?”, to which the partner agreed?  I see a big difference.  Her words v. his words.  The article doesn’t make it clear.  P.S.  white males are the devil.  THE DEVIL!!

Flag this comment

Richard Wadsworth
Aug 8, 2008 9:13 AM CST

Cathy, that is a shame.  My wife never does any of those things for me.  And I am not a partner either.  It must be an unwritten condition of admittance, at least here.

Flag this comment

Jill
Aug 8, 2008 10:09 AM CST

Sally, thank you for your articulate insight. I think it would be difficult for anyone in this forum to deny that sexism and racism still exist in our country’s law firms, regardless of differentiating opinions about its prevalence.  As such, I am disappointed to see so many quips and sarcastic comments; they only minimize a serious and painful issue.  I appreciate you sharing your story.

Flag this comment

R
Aug 8, 2008 10:47 AM CST

Posts 14 and 16 by Jenny are right on: this was simply a denial of a pretrial motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiff will have a chance to tell her story to a jury (if there isn’t a settlement).

Is it “likely” discrimination as post 1 (Filk Bahr) said? Way too early to say, and too little information. The jury will decide.

One thing’s for sure: It’s pretty unusual for lawyers to be suing fellow lawyers for employment discrimination. I’ve heard some lawyers say it’s professional suicide. However, we’ve all seen the movie “Philadelphia” and other examples of how lawyers are not immune from horrible discrimination.

Under prevailing legal standards, I don’t think a one-time remark by one supervisor that a person isn’t “sweet” enough would be grounds for a finding of discrimination. If that’s all she can come up with when all is said and done, that same Judge Wood might grant a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding a planitiffs’ verdict - or a plaintiff’s verdict would be vulnerable to overturning on appeal.

But maybe there’s more. We’ll see. (Or more likely, we won’t see and it’ll be settled on a confidential basis and the plaintiff will move to a new town to try to re-establish a professional career.)

Flag this comment

Bob West
Aug 8, 2008 10:58 AM CST

I agree with Jenny, Post #14 - this appears simply to be a 12(b)(6) ruling—based on what is revealed in the article, correctly.  There are too few facts to judge either the attorney or the firm.  A short artilce like this cannot possibly summarize all the facts of such an employment and contractual dispute, that is what juries are for.  In my experience, usually good legal talent is recognized and appreciated—but let’s face it folks, the private law firm is a model of pure, exploitive capitalism, and most of the available evidence (salaries, partnership ratios, lead assignments, and, as Sally in post 15 eloquently describes, firm resources) suggests that law firms still have quite a way to go to achieve objective gender equality.  I think it will take a generation.  Half my law school class that graduated in 1984 are women, and I actually feel more comfortable being supervised by women, and arguing to women judges.  The profession breeds contempt, and contemptuous men are celebrated; contemptuous women are not.  But then, I entered law to help people, not make money, and I have never worked a day in a private law firm, precisely because of the exploitive model of partners profiting off the labor disproportionately performed by associates.  That women can be and are oppressed and exploited in private law firms is not new, simply history repeating itself.  If Ms. Collins prevails in her lawsuit—actually both the firm and the lawyer would be smart to settle their dispute—perhaps law firms will learn that they need to display objective signs of gender equality, starting with partnership ratios, salaries, and resource allocation.  Then they would have reduced fear of a “he-said, she-said” lawsuits like this one.  But please remember that our legal system is designed to allow the very type of lawsuit brought here, so that each litigant can have its day in court.

Flag this comment

Andy the Lawyer
Aug 8, 2008 11:27 AM CST

“Don’t be rude to the paralegals and the other staffers—we can replace you more easily than them” is gender neutral. 

If this partner had had the sense to give this lawyer that feedback in that manner and with that language, there wouldn’t now be a lawsuit.

Flag this comment

Karen Aviles
Aug 8, 2008 12:06 PM CST

To shed light on Sally’s and Stella’s comments, I offer the following about a recent study presented reviewers with scenarios and then asked the reviewer to evaluate the behavior of a person in a scenario.  The majority of reviewers (and this included woman reviewers) judged the behavior of a person in a scenario more negatively when the person had a female name.  So, if a person in a scenario forcefully gave out orders and the person had a female name, the reviewer tended to rate such behavior as aggressive or bossy.  But, if a person had a male name in the exact same scenario, the reviewers tended to rate the person as extremely competent or having leadership skills.  And a woman who took sick leave to take care of a child was viewed as not dedicated to her job, as opposed to the man who took sick leave, who was not viewed negatively.  Thus, the issue is not about being “nice” at work.  Instead, it is whether the female associate was criticized for behavior which would not have been criticized if a male associate had acted the same way.

Flag this comment

Chris
Aug 8, 2008 12:37 PM CST

Karen,  If I am the one providing guidance and direction, am I bossy or competent?  What about my fiance, Pat?

Flag this comment

Rick
Aug 8, 2008 11:53 PM CST

Well, Chris, your fiancé Pat would likely be found competent, according to the study, and you would be bossy.  Now, if it were your fiancée Pat, she would probably be judged bossy.

Similarly, a self-deprecating blonde would be a “ditz” or an “airhead,” but a self-deprecating blond would probably be judged humble or modest.

Flag this comment

Houston Lawyer
Aug 11, 2008 11:53 AM CST

I had an experience remarkably similar to that of Sally and Stella.  In fact, my assistant, who was female, flat out told me that she preferred to work for men, and that was why she didn’t do my work and only did the work of a male partner who was only 1 year senior to me at the firm.  She literally allowed my filing to pile up to the point that it filled an entire associates office, while his work was done immediately.  It made it very difficult for me to do my job.  I was never particularly “sweet” nor was I particularly abrasive to this woman.  She simply decided that my work wasn’t as important as the male partner’s work.  Gender stereotypes and discrimination thrive in large law firms.  I’m glad I’m now in-house at a company whose law department actually values diversity and treats women with respect at all levels of the organization.

Flag this comment

mrs jd
Aug 15, 2008 9:48 AM CST

As a female associate, I find I have to spend a lot of time building rapport with the support staff to get my stuff done. I always bring out the birthday gifts and christmas gifts with flourish, and the guys can get off on being callous and “forgetting”, but the investment it well worth it. Spend $400 on godiva and itunes giftcards for the mailroom and support staff that isn’t your secretary each year, and you’ll see the investment is well worth it.

Flag this comment