Life After BigLaw: ‘No Job, No Baby and 10 Pounds of Leftover Fat’

Careers

Life After BigLaw: ‘No Job, No Baby and 10 Pounds of Leftover Fat’

Posted Jun 24, 2008, 09:21 am CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

Shinyung Oh, the ousted Paul Hastings associate who sent a scathing mass e-mail denouncing the firm’s layoff tactics, is airing her feelings once again, this time on her own blog, Because You Never Know ... .

The blog contains posts on Oh’s sadness over her miscarriage and her post-law firm life. She remembers her first quest to find a job after college in a post titled “Career Choice” and writes: “So what do I have to show for the past 15 years of my life? I have no job, no baby and 10 pounds of leftover fat that hang like pieces of a dead chicken. I own a house with a mortgage that exceeds the cost of several houses in the Midwest. Oh, right, at least I can put 'Esq.' behind my name.”

Oh reveals that her first career ambition was to be a magazine writer. Above the Law concludes Oh should get paid for her words, describing her posts as "moving and beautifully written."

“Publishers: Give this woman a book deal, stat,” Above the Law says.

Comments

Report Abuse

Posted by Susan Cartier Liebel - 2 months, 5 days, 7 hours, 52 minutes ago

Her writing is beyond brilliant. She paints pictures with her words which are so vivid I could touch it.

And if there is a publisher or agent out there reading this....you better call her if you’re worth your salt.

And on top of that, she has grit, courage, morality and not afraid of system too many lawyers blindly protect without thinking about the human fallout.
Posted by msg - 2 months, 5 days, 4 hours, 57 minutes ago

I like how she exposes big law for what it is. Shinyung - can you also expose the legal recruiting world for how corrupt that is also?!
Posted by Ellen Barshevsky - 2 months, 2 days, 12 hours, 54 minutes ago

Wow. Well written BLAWG. I feel for her and other women attorneys. Law firms always promise the world to us, use us,then nearly always, spit us out for the next crop of young (unsuspecting) crop of newly minted women lawyers who eagerly take our place thinking that because of their youth and energy that they will fair differently from us. Well, wake up and smell the coffee! Yes, you are young, smart, energetic and cute, but guess what, we were too! And we got the proverbial shaft and while we hope you won’t, we really know better. As long as backslapping, vodka-swilling, beer-gutted, balding partners run the firms, there will always be 3-4 years of good times for smart, pretty, energetic and perky young female associates. But unfortunately, however, our qualities wayne over time, as we realize the reality that we are like hamburger meat--going through the motions and then being wrung out only to be replaced by fresher younger women. The reality is tough. I think this should be a wake up call for all Women not to fall pray to the partners who promise the world, but then leave us holding the bag. Sad.
Posted by BC - 2 months, 2 days, 12 hours, 23 minutes ago

So she was laid off. And it was probably for the wrong reasons. She should go out and find another job instead of blogging. Working at Paul Hastings will have opened up numerous jobs for her with other firms.
Posted by VRI - 2 months, 2 days, 12 hours, 4 minutes ago

"Working at Paul Hastings will have opened up numerous jobs for her with other firms. “

Not anymore. I can’t imagine many firms willing to welcome her now.
Posted by ABC - 2 months, 2 days, 11 hours, 47 minutes ago

If women are so unhappy practicing law, why are approximately 56% of the current law school enrollees female? Shouldn’t some of the older lady lawyers disabuse them of law as a career?
Posted by Welcome to the real world - 2 months, 2 days, 11 hours, 42 minutes ago

The Complaining generation is still alive and well . . .
Posted by ming dung - 2 months, 2 days, 11 hours, 20 minutes ago

I’ve always hated the name of that firm- Paul Hastings. It sounds like the name of a guy you went to highschool with or something. I also can’t stand it when people have two first names.
Posted by HT - 2 months, 2 days, 11 hours, 19 minutes ago

Sounds like a lot of complaining to me. Not sure who works somewhere for 15 years (in any career) and does not establish a saftey net. I would black list her in the legal community for her comments. Sounds like someone trying to blame a big law firm for her own personal problems. Last time I checked there is no involuntary servitude in the US and she made a choice to work in that environment for 15 years, I am sure because of the money and maintaining much too high of a lifestyle (again her choice). If your an associate at a firm for 15 years, you probably should have gotten the point at year 6 or 7 that you are never becoming a partner and its time to move on. I strongly disagree with comment number 3 and the comment should not try to imply this situation is indiosynchratic to women. Basically, all law firms and partners (as any management position in any career) are all full of **it and will tell you anything to line their pockets. Ultimately, if you have no book of business you are an associate for the rest of your life and are completely disposable. It’s that simple whether your a man or woman, the book of business is all that dictates. Don’t have it, go no where!
Posted by Spareme - 2 months, 2 days, 10 hours, 49 minutes ago

Let me make sure I understand: she gets a job at some big firm (so she can make tons of money, one presumes), buys a big expensive house, and I’m supposed to feel sorry for her? What a shocker: greed got her nowhere. Perhaps a bit more emotional maturity and a bit less materialism fifteen years ago might have helped.
Posted by Anonymous Coward - 2 months, 2 days, 10 hours, 48 minutes ago

What an absolutely sleazy title. Paul Hastings may have taken away this person’s job… but you want to also imply they killed her fetus, and “forced” her to eat crappy foods and gain 10 pounds?!?

There are really two stories here. One is that large firms often try to disguise downsizing as being performance-based firings. This is a pretty dumb idea in the age of online communication… because everyone knows exactly what’s up, so you hide nothing and your public image winds up worse than had you simply been straightforward.

The second story is there are an awful large number of law school grads who are utterly clueless, and never should have gone to law school in the first place. What did this person think she was getting into? This is what BigLaw *IS*. You do it for a few years, and if you’re a bitter lonely person by nature, you stick around on the partner track. If you care about work-life balance… you use those fat paychecks to knock a deep dent in your loans, and then take all the free training they wasted on you and lateral over to a small firm or in-house gig. ABA Journal can write 10,000 articles on the subject, but that’s pretty much the game and it’s not going to change. So don’t blame BigLaw for things in your life that were either horrible misfortunes or voluntary choices… and for heaven’s sake, don’t commit career suicide by blogging about it under your real name and closing doors even at the smaller firms.
Posted by DRH - 2 months, 2 days, 10 hours, 47 minutes ago

While I agree that the “book of business” is all that dictates, I disagree that this is a problem equally facing men and women. I am only a fifth year associate and even in law school women were warned about either being “partner track” or “baby track”. Many male attorneys (not all) depend on their wives who often stay at home raising the children while they aggressively pursue their careers. No matter how far we’ve come, I agree that as long as those type of male partners run the big firms, women will always get the short end of the stick if they have the audacity to want to have a career and have a family too.
Posted by EF - 2 months, 2 days, 10 hours, 39 minutes ago

Strip away the niceties, and the bottom line is the bottom line. The “candy” of corporate greed is the illusion that personal relationships matter beyond that bottom line. When times get hard, the illusion disappears and low and behold, disgruntled associates start complaining about the beds they have made. The writing was clearly on the wall that she was going to get laid off when her review was downgraded. I agree it would have been more honest to say that business was not holding up and we have to let you go. However, it would have been wiser to sign the zipper agreement and negotiate a better package. Ultimately, Paul Hastings’ decision was “ad hominem” in nature, and it should have been viewed as a business transaction.
Posted by HT - 2 months, 2 days, 10 hours, 16 minutes ago

In response to ERH’s comment, there are also female attorneys that depend on their husbands to raise children and there is no reason this cannot be the case. Also, female attorneys can make the concious (albeit wrong) decision to put work ahead of their family’s (and their are plenty of female attorneys that make this choice as well) just as much as male partners. It is the same choice a man has to make. Most importantly, you chose who you marry and if you feel like male partners have an unfair advtangage you can level the playing field. If you desire a bread winning career, do not marry a guy that puts his own work ahead of yours. I am sure there are plenty of guys that would love to stay home all day while their wife earns the money. As a matter of fact, there are several female partners in my firm with this exact situation and they also are very committed to their families. The only story here is a 15 year associate was fired because she had no book of business and it was time to cut the deadweight from the firm.
Posted by McKinzie McCracken - 2 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 57 minutes ago

I completely agree with Poster No. 8; what is wrong with parents who name their kids two first names and think it is socially acceptable in America? If I had two names, I would quickly change my name at the age of consent. Some parents are pretty stupid.

What’s this thread about again?
Posted by Paul Hastings II - 2 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 55 minutes ago

To Poster 15: or two last names!
Posted by Oh? No! - 2 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 47 minutes ago

I’m miserable, I hate my job, I’m fat, my hair is receding, I’m greedy, I can’t have a baby, I’m headed straight for hell—and IT"S ALL MY FIRM’S FAULT!!

Looks like somebody ought to take a long look in the mirror.
Posted by SAA - 2 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 41 minutes ago

To DRH:

A couple decides how child care and household responsibilties will be divided. Please do not blame law firms for decisions that personal relationship partners have to make.

But, if you want a career and a family, do not expect special treatment. There are some of us who do not appreciate higher expectations and more work because we understand that it is not possible to have your cake (family) and eat it too (BigLaw job). In other words, the single and/or childless are often called upon to step up when others have family commitments. (And we subsidize your insurance premiums, too.)
Posted by Bill - 2 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 41 minutes ago

Oh so sad.
Posted by sc - 2 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 39 minutes ago

First off, this week’s articles are horrible, even by the ABA’s standards.

Second, ellen, same bs as usual from you. They post ridiculous articles like this so people like you can make inflammatory remarks, but you can’t get beyond your own narrow (yes narrow) views to realize this.

Third, male or female, if you are a 15 year associate, you did something wrong along the way. However, since its a female, the obvious implication is sexism. If the person were black, it would be racism. Apparently, if you are a minority, the only reason you didn’t advance was because of bald, old white men.
Posted by MW - 2 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 14 minutes ago

SC- you’re being sarcastic, but that sad part is more often than not, that’s the truth. Not a bald old white guy, but long-unchallenged institutitional racism/sexism. We don’t know whether she was passed up for partner, turned it down, or never offered due to discrimination or qualifications. But let’s not simply reduce ithis conversation to a rant, complaining about other people’s minority status. If you don’t realize sex and racial discrimination runs rampant in the workplace (and especially in BigLaw) then you’re not half as smart as you think you are.

Also, she (Shinyung Oh) never made any such allegations. Advocates speak for others without putting words in the mouths of those for whom they speak.
Posted by Gimmeabreak - 2 months, 2 days, 9 hours, 12 minutes ago

Hell with her—give ME a book deal! Sing it, Carly: “You’re so vain...”
Posted by Hadley V. Baxendale - 2 months, 2 days, 8 hours, 52 minutes ago

First, there is an untold truth in her being a 15 year associate. Her choice for a slower track? She never was very good but was kept on under affirmative action? She should have left, didn’t get the clue, and the firm was good enought to let her stay? Her associate level work was good but no partner-level ability? If she were a 5-8 year associate I might look at it differently.
Second, in the Biglaw model, associates can’t build a book of business and some are told directly not to bring in new clients (such as Uncle Pete’s hot dog stand in the Bronx.) So unlike those leaving the traditional firm, their options are limited.
Posted by hahaha - 2 months, 2 days, 8 hours, 48 minutes ago

HA HA HA!!! I got such a kick out of reading these reponses. Let’s be honest, just for a moment, ok?

People go into law for only a few reasons: Door # 1. To make a **itload of $$, sacrificing everyone / everything that gets in the way, with no regard for the consequences. Door # 2. Because they’re already so D*** rich (parents, trust fund, etc.), that they can think of nothing better to do than to sign up to be a UN or ACLU pro bono attorney. Door # 3. In the self-created hopes of “having it all,” ludicrously deluding themselves into believing that they can make big law $$, work small firm hours, have a family life like Leave it to Beaver, AND be involved in a dozen or so other extracurricular activities (Girl Scout Troop leader, Sunday School teacher, volunteer at the soup kitchen, etc., etc., etc.). Door # 4. They can’t figure out what the h*** else to do (and almost always end up choosing Door #’s 1, 2 or 3).

These very same people could have chosen to work at McDonald’s, as a garbage man, as a librarian, as, as, as.... Now, whose fault is it that they chose law & one of the three doors above? You make your choices and you live with them. You can’t have it all. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Fill in the blank here with your own, personal, favorite colloquialism.

Get the F over it, stand up, and tell yourself the truth for once. YOU made your choices and - that’s right!! - you can choose a different path any time you like. No one is stuck anywhere. Period. You just have to be willing to gather your courage & do something entirely different.
Posted by KWD - 2 months, 2 days, 8 hours, 16 minutes ago

She was not a 15 year associate. It has been 15 years since she graduated from college and began her career. The blog entry linked to this article reveals that she worked as a paralegal before attending law school. I don’t know how many years she spent as an associate, but it was less than 12.
Posted by RMT - 2 months, 2 days, 8 hours, 5 minutes ago

I agree! The article states her first job search was to be a writer? And she chose BigLaw instead?… oh, but now - now, she writes! I suppose without her 15 year career with BigLaw she would have nothing to write about.
Ellen (comment #3): maybe the not-so-new crop of attorneys are let go due to poor grammer? Bad proof-reading skills? Just a thought… if you perform, you are worth keeping - male or female. It may be true the ‘good ol’ boy’ system sets the standards for what is considered performance. But it isn’t like that information is a big secret: get your book of business, keep your clients happy, bring in the money.
Posted by Bird Smack - 2 months, 2 days, 8 hours ago

"If women are so unhappy practicing law, why are approximately 56% of the current law school enrollees female? Shouldn’t some of the older lady lawyers disabuse them of law as a career?”

Because the JD is the new MRS.
Posted by Miranda Hobbes - 2 months, 2 days, 7 hours, 59 minutes ago

You can only aspire to “have it all” in a state of nature. Lawyers who choose BigLaw accede to a the sovereign authority of the partners for the sake of the benefits this authority provides. Lawyers who choose to accede to this authority accept the consequences.
Posted by mm - 2 months, 2 days, 7 hours, 49 minutes ago

Uh, 11, I suspect Ms. Oh’s weight gain is due to her pregnancy, not that she ate crappy foods. And I don’t think your comments regarding “clueless law school grads” really apply to a woman who worked successfully with BigLaw for at least a decade. Just sayin.
Posted by lgs - 2 months, 2 days, 6 hours, 46 minutes ago

#26 - Grammer? aka Grammar? Poor proof reading skills? No spelll check? Ok, I guess you’re toast.....
Posted by beth pocker - 2 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 55 minutes ago

Maybe it’s time that Ms. Oh end her pity party and begin to use the Esq. following her name to serve the vast population of persons in need of legal services. There is a rewarding career in law far away from large firm practice. Avoiding working in large firms is a positive step towards making a real difference in one’s community as well as one’s personal life.
Posted by Blissfully happy - 2 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 31 minutes ago

And this is news why? I have no sympathy for people like this. There are people starving to death, being massacred in conflicts, and affected by environmental catastrophies across the globe ... and little Miss Associate’s life hasn’t turned out as cushy as she hoped? Please ... Hopefully it will get worse for her so she can grow a backbone.
Posted by Rick - 2 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 19 minutes ago

#32: Exactly. She lives in the wealthiest country the world has ever seen, been given some of the the greatest privilege and opportunities available, and whines. Learn to be grateful.
Posted by ADM - 2 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 6 minutes ago

Comment #29, I am sure her weight gain was attributable to eating bad foods and as well as being pregnant. Most times these do go hand in hand and I think she is clueless if she worked for a big law firm for almost a decade and still has the title associate. I really do not think that makes her have a clue about the real world in these circumstances.
Posted by lady lawyer - 2 months, 2 days, 5 hours, 4 minutes ago

I think the way that Paul Hastings canned her was disgusting, but Oh only has herself to blame for her career trajectory. I worked in BigLaw for 3 1/2 years and saw that if I stayed there I’d get stuck with no partnership prospects, or just being a service partner at best. I decided to take a pay cut and go to a small firm where I had more long-term potential. Oh missed her window at least 4 years back to leave PH and go somewhere else that was long term. Yeah, there are service partners, but there is no incentive to keep you around when you get more expensive with each year of experience and there are plenty of people to replace you.
Posted by em - 2 months, 2 days, 4 hours, 53 minutes ago

I don’t think you can look at someone who has been an associate for 10 years and determine that there is something wrong with them for not being a partner. Have you checked out the partnership tracks lately? Very few firms are making gobs of people partners, and it is taking longer to do so. She wasn’t complaining about not being a partner, she was complaining about the pretense under which the firm let her go, when generally, if you are a poor performed, you get a little more warning that your work is not up to par. She didn’t, in fact, she was told that her work was good.

And their decision was poorly timed. Really, anyone who has been through the loss of a child knows that there is pressure to return to work right away, and the reality is that losing a baby at 10 weeks, or 20 (and I have done both), is traumatic and devastating and to not have your co-workers even express their sympathy is frankly disgusting. If her dog or her mother died, they probably would have sent flowers.

And for whoever didn’t read the article - she hasn’t been practicing for 5 years. She was counting the time since she graduated from college (1993) and her time in law school. Really, don’t they teach reading for content in law school anymore?
Posted by em - 2 months, 2 days, 4 hours, 51 minutes ago

I mis-typed. I meant to say that she hasn’t been practicing for 15 years. I do read for content, I just don’t type so well sometimes.
Posted by R - 2 months, 2 days, 4 hours, 45 minutes ago

Re poster 8: “Paul Hastings”: I always get that confused with ‘Paul Fredrick,” the shirt company. And I get THAT confused with “Frederick’s of Hollywood.” Which makes for some unusual business trips.
Posted by Commentator - 2 months, 2 days, 3 hours, 35 minutes ago

Why can’t you have it all? Maybe not all the time, there will be give and take, but you can be a woman, have a family and work at a big firm (at least for awhile). In the long run, happy, ful-filled associates and partners will make a much more better off firm.
Posted by LIONEL HUTZ - 2 months, 2 days, 3 hours, 18 minutes ago

Anonymous Coward,

I would guess the 10 pounds may have been pregnancy weight.
Posted by LIONEL HUTZ - 2 months, 2 days, 3 hours, 6 minutes ago

HT,

It is rare that an associate becomes a partner as of their 7th year. That’s usually the first year they are eligible.
Posted by heather branca - 2 months, 2 days, 2 hours, 35 minutes ago

Speaking as a woman who has been in the workplace more than 20 years but a “new” attorney, is it really any different anywhere?

Having children takes you from your job for Dr. appointments, soccer games, etc. Should the absentee employee be more valuable than the one who has no kids? I think that in the same circumstances men will experience the same bias. In my experience, reliability rather than gender is the greatest issue with the employer.
Posted by H.V. Baxendale - 2 months, 2 days, 1 hour, 24 minutes ago

"reliability rather than gender is the greatest issue with the employer.” Ah, how refreshing is reality. That most women with children are not reliable* in big law practice may be coincidence but even the female partners know it’s true even if they are not allowed to say it out loud. The exceptions donn’t change the reality when you are looking at probablity. Why can’t everyone get it and move on, rather than whining about the consequences of reality?
*I don’t mean this as a character flaw or moral failing; I mean it in terms of not being able to be 100% committed to a rough work schedule, no interruptions from outside obligations or standing committments to others (such as picking up children from school).
Posted by Dan - 2 months, 1 day, 23 hours, 22 minutes ago

When life gives you lemons, make lemonade- not blog!
Posted by Dan K. - 2 months, 1 day, 22 hours, 4 minutes ago

Boo-hoo! All my law firm did was make me richer than 99% of human beings who have ever lived…

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

What a crybaby. There are thousands of lawyers who would gladly take her job.
Posted by K - 2 months, 1 day, 20 hours, 6 minutes ago

Ms. Shinyung Oh’s story is no different than the stories of thousands of other attorneys - regardless of gender, race, religion, ethnicity, age or creed.

Many attorneys leave the profession within 10 years after entering it and litigation attorneys tend to leave the profession within 7 years of entering it. I obtained this fact at a recent bar association meeting.

Very few attorneys become partners at law firms. Even smaller law firms are very selective at who makes partner.

Many attorneys mistakenly assume that if they work very hard, become technically proficient at their careers, plus bring in a lot of clients, they will become partners. These attorneys are missing another piece of the puzzle.

To become a partner, you need to work hard, become somewhat technically proficient at your job, bring in a lot of clients AND have the type of personality that the other partners like.

This means that if the firm is a little underhanded and aggressive, the other partners will want to admit a partner who is also a little underhanded and aggressive - not someone is too honest and fair.

It also means that if a law firm is honest and compassionate (a lot of pro bono cases) the other partners will want to admit a partner who is honest and compassionate - not someone who is cunning and only concerned with money.

Basically, partnership is a marriage. When you decide who you are going to marry, their occupation and income are important factors, but would you marry someone who is too cold when you are more affectionate or someone who is likely to be extremely religious while you couldn’t care less about religion? Well, some people would of course if they are desperate or devoid of emotion. But in most cases, unless the person is extremely wealthy (such as Oprah or Madonna) you would not want to marry someone whose personality you don’t like.

This is true for law firms as well. Partners want to admit partners who will support the firm’s mission and goals plus keep their secrets and be loyal. They want someone who will be easy to deal with and put the firm before their own personal values and lifestyle. They don’t want someone who will be a possible liability to the firm.

So unless a firm is financially desperate and needs more partners and more clients and unless an attorney can bring in an enormous amount of wealthy clients (very rare), that attorney will not become partner if s/he does not also fit the firm’s personality profile.

Now of course, I don’t know if Ms. Shinyung Oh was fired due to incompetence or due to racism, sexism or any other unfair, biased reason. But her situation appears to be no different than many other attorneys’s situations. The fact that she wrote such an e-mail and complains about her life shows that she is not a team player and more concerned with her own personal accomplishments and desires. Perhaps the firm noticed this and decided that she wasn’t partnership material.

I myself have been laid off from several law firms and I have never written such an e-mail. I simply moved on as best as I could.

An interesting tidbit - studies have shown that men are more likely than women to sacrifice their personal lives in order to enhance their careers. Men are more likely to play office politics than women. In other words, men are more likely to “suck up” at the office than women do. Women are more likely to believe that their accomplishments and hard work should speak for themselves; therefore, they shouldn’t have to change who they are in order to become partner. This is logical and reasonable, but it is not realistic. Men are more likely to find out what it takes to advance in their careers and plan accordingly.

Another interesting tidbit - studies have shown that in a recession, white men are more likely to be laid off than other employees. Many say that’s because white men tend to earn higher salaries but others say it’s because companies aren’t afraid of white men filing discrimination lawsuits against them. Many white men have complained that they have trained women and minorities at their jobs, worked even harder than women and minorities and yet were laid off even when they agreed to lower salaries. There are those who believe that as long as a woman or a minority member demonstrates basic competence at their careers, they won’t be fired while a white man has to demonstrate a higher level of competence in order to hold onto their jobs.

It looks as if everyone believes that they are a victim of discrimination nowadays.

In any case, who would want to become partner? I sure don’t. It involves too many personal sacrifices. I would rather spend more time with my family. By the way, I am a man and I decided a long time ago that I would not change who I am in order to become partner. This is my choice and I have accepted the consequences without complaining.
Posted by Abigail - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 day, 17 hours, 41 minutes ago

I think it’s sad when fellow lawyers would rather spend time being so critical and rude about another lawyer blogging about her experiences. People talking about changing their names if they had two first names and two last names, people thinking that all of a sudden white men have it harder than minorities and women in the work place...Please. You obviously have not done appropriate research or have the evidence to support such a ridiculous argument. I think people need to read the blog again and act like human beings and show some compassion for others. This is exactly why people in OUR society think so poorly of lawyers. By the way, many of us did not go to school to make a crapload of money, or for any other vain reason. The people who are always so willing to tell someone to look in the mirror should be the first to do so.
Posted by CT - 1 month, 4 weeks, 1 day, 13 hours, 33 minutes ago

Why is it ridiculous to say that white men have difficulty (abet different problems) in the workplace? Affirmative action doesn’t bring parity or equality in the workplace. Instead it tilts the scale the other way and the distinctions are just as unreasonable as not hiring someone becasue of their skin color. There may still be discrimination going on in certain segments of society, but in the context of higher education, law school admissions, and big firm hiring of new associates (i’m not talking about partnership circles) it has become the white male who is discriminated against.

The irony here is that the affirmative action “leg up” goes to individuals who, by virture of the fact that they are applying to college, law school, or professional position, don’t need that leg up. These are the people in the “so called” protected class who have demonstrated their own abilities. Instead affirmative action has the tendency to make other people question whether or not members of the “protected class” “did it on their own.” Say what you will about Justice Thomas, on this issue he’s 100% right.
Posted by Lenrid - 1 month, 4 weeks, 13 hours, 22 minutes ago

I agree with CT in comment 48 and disagree with Abigail in comment 47.

Why do so many people believe that all white men are automatically privileged while all women and minorities are automatically disadvantaged? Have you done research?

There are actually government agencies who have policies in which white men can ONLY be hired by the “full approval of the board of trustees.” Yet women and minorities can be hired at any time without such approval. Can you imagine if it was the other way around? People would be screaming sexism and racism.

I have seen plenty of scholarships for women and minorities only and plenty of government funds for women and minorities who start their own businesses and professional practices. Has anyone ever heard of a scholarship or government-sponsored opportunity program for white men only?

People still seem to believe that the United States is the way it was before the 1980s when women and minorities were discriminated against. But by the late 1970s, the trend was already turning.

Many businesses and law firms are striving for a “diverse workplace” which basically means reduce the number of white men in favor of more women and minorities. Any workplace that shuts out a person because of gender, race, or religion is guilty of unfair prejudice. By the way, white men are a race and a gender as many people seem to forget.

Affirmative action was supposed to be a temporary policy designed to level the playing field. Now, many want it to become a permanent entitlement.

And affirmative action actually discriminates between women and minorities. In some cases, hispanic women are favored over black women while native american people are favored over hispanic people and so on.

These facts are not even disputed that much any more.
Posted by AMC - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 17 hours, 53 minutes ago

To “hahaha” in number 24. How about another “door"- that we get into law because we want to practice law? Call me crazy, but I went to law school because I wanted to become a trial attorney. Yes, the spectre of the money was good, but I worked my way through, have a stack of loans taller than i am and LOVE WHAT I DO! My husband, on the other hand, chose door # 4, and went to law school because he didn’t know what else to do - and he met me.
I also made a conscious decision during my first year of school not to go the “biglaw” route, and I think I’m happier for it. I took 2 years off to have a baby, and yet I’m still a partner in a small firm and I do o.k. Am I making the big bucks? No, but like I said, I love what I do and I can sleep at night.
But don’t automatically dismiss everyone who goes to law school as being rich or in it for the payout on the back-end. Some of us went because it’s what we wanted to do with our lives.
Posted by K - 1 month, 3 weeks, 6 days, 7 hours, 20 minutes ago

This comment is in response to Abigail in comment 47.

Abigail, in your response to my comment, #46, you stated that the idea that white men have it harder than women and minorities in the workplace is a ridiculous argument that is not supported by appropriate evidence and research.

First, I never said that white men necessarily have it harder than women and minorities in the workplace. Nor would I say that women and minorities necessarily have it harder than white men in the workplace. Discrimination has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis not by a blanket statement that one group automatically has it harder than another.

And your apparent belief that white men can’t have it harder than women and minorities is in itself ridiculous. Do you know what goes on in every single workplace in the U.S.A. or in the world? Of course not.

Furthermore, the argument that white men may be discriminated against in the workplace is supported by evidence and research.

In 2005, four white men won $2.96 million in a reverse discrimination suit against the School District of Philadelphia. In addition, they won reinstatement to comparable jobs in the School District. They were terminated without notice and none have ever been written up for performance issues.

The Center for Individual Rights has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Dept. of Housing alleging that white men can’t get hired or promoted fairly because the agency is too busy bean-counting women and minorities. This type of lawsuit can be filed against virtually any federal agency because the U.S. Office of Personnel Management reports that minority employees throughout the federal government are overrepresented relative to the labor pool.

There are numerous cases of white men winning reverse discrimination suits against private firms and businesses but I can’t post them because there is a word limit on comments. I posted the government cases because the government is supposed to promote justice, fairness and equality and combat unfair discrimination. Look how good a job they are doing.

And it’s not just the U.S.A. In the United Kingdom, Glouchestershire police admitted illegally rejecting 108 job applicants because they were white men. Many European cases involve discriminationn against white men.

If you do research, Abigail, you will see there are many cases like this.

Please approach discrimination cases or any other cases with an open mind and realize that anyone can be a victim. I am glad to see that comments 48 and 49 agree with me. Yes, it’s true that discrimination against white men is not a ridiculous argument but a reality that is not disputed that much any more.
Posted by HVRC - 1 month, 3 weeks, 1 day, 6 hours, 20 minutes ago

I agree that anyone can be a victim of discrimination in the workplace.

Case in point, many single people have complained that their co-workers who have children often take extended leave of absences, with pay in some but not all cases, in order to take care of their children. The single people often are expected to take over the duties of their absent co-workers and when these absent co-workers do return, they expect the same promotions and bonuses as if they never took any time off.

This is discrimination against people who don’t have children but I would also argue that in many cases it is discrimination against men. Most employers are not as generous when it comes to giving time off to people without children and to men who have children.

I should know. I am a single man and when my father became sick with cancer, I had to save vacation days, personal days, sick days and family leave days in order to help take care of him.

Yet, I didn’t get my usual bonus at the end of the year. When I asked why, they told me that I took too many days off. I missed some meetings. They also said that there was no need to take that many days off because my mother was available to take care of my father and together we could have hired a nurse to help us.

But when a number of women took many days off to deal with their children’s issues, (pick-up from day care, driving their kids to sporting events and practices, etc.) these women still got their bonuses.

I pointed this out and they said that it’s not the same because there are less options available for taking care of children than for taking care of parents. Really? Can’t they hire nannies the way I was expected to hire a nurse? After some arguing, they finally agreed that I would get a slight raise for my years (more than 10) of service.

Many men who asked for time off to take care of their children were given similar treatment. There have been numerous cases where mothers were promoted to manager or partner even though they worked part-time or took time off but I haven’t heard of any fathers getting these benefits for doing the same.

And taking care of sick elderly parents isn’t as important as taking care of young children? I didn’t realize that as we age, we become less important.

There are a lot of discrimination issues that need to be addressed in the workplace.

Commenting has expired on this post.

ABA Journal - Law News Now

Careers