Conflict with same-year colleague

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
Nebby

Diamond
Posts: 31197
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2014 12:23 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Nebby » Wed May 03, 2017 8:26 am

FedFan123 watched Mad Men and is now an expert on interpersonal relationships in the office

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed May 03, 2017 9:12 am

grand inquisitor wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid

tell this to poor bill o'reilly

Yes, I will concede that it's reasonable advice if you are in fact a serial sexual harasser.

User avatar
TLSModBot

Diamond
Posts: 14838
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:54 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby TLSModBot » Wed May 03, 2017 9:53 am

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
grand inquisitor wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid

tell this to poor bill o'reilly

Yes, I will concede that it's reasonable advice if you are in fact a serial sexual harasser.

:lol:

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby elendinel » Wed May 03, 2017 9:53 am

Nebby wrote:FedFan123 watched Mad Men and is now an expert on interpersonal relationships in the office


I do have to say I always find it hilarious how scared people are of being accused of things like harassment, as if something serious actually happens when the majority of people are accused of harassment. People been watching too much TV and reading too many red pill threads.

lurklaw

Silver
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby lurklaw » Wed May 03, 2017 9:55 am

For any junior associates or law students reading this, the takeaway is never to seek out pro bono work.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18290
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Desert Fox » Wed May 03, 2017 10:22 am

lurklaw wrote:For any junior associates or law students reading this, the takeaway is never to seek out pro bono work.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Desert Fox

Diamond
Posts: 18290
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:34 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Desert Fox » Wed May 03, 2017 10:23 am

Just tell them to "chill out." He/she will get the message all teh same.
Last edited by Desert Fox on Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

FedFan123

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby FedFan123 » Wed May 03, 2017 12:00 pm

elendinel wrote:
FedFan123 wrote:Thanks for the reasonable response, and I actually agree with what you said. As to your first point, yes I did struggle with how to phrase that to get the point across without making it sound bad, but you got the message I was going for. As to the second point, I agree with what you said, but I was speaking broadly about how I would hypothetically approach this situation. I certainly agree that the individual at issue can (and most likely will) affect the outcome of how you should approach. I think everyone here knows that there are chill women and emotional/crazy men and vice versa. My point was more that I would generally approach the situation with caution for all of the reasons I've stated, but an individual situation could certainly be different. I understand your overall point though!


I don't think you stated what you think you stated, is perhaps the problem.

You start out with "well people have to be cautious because people interpret things the wrong way" but then diverge into "But hey can't we just admit that men and women are different, too?" And then you start talking about how these differences mean it's not crazy to treat people differently. Which doesn't sound like you're saying "Be cautious about X if you're from a protected class because it'll come off the wrong way if you're not"; it sounds like you're saying "Can we stop pretending men and women are the same and admit that it's okay to assume you should treat them differently based on inherent scientific differences I found on Google?"

If I had to guess, I would guess the issue here isn't that you need to be cautious about saying what you want to say because people are going to get touchy about it, so much as your fear that people are going to get touchy about what you want to say is making it difficult to actually express what you want to express, which (ironically) makes your comments sound more offensive and defensive than I think you intend. If you just came out and said what you actually want to say, it may actually sound a lot less controversial than what you're posting so far.

Which applies equally to the notion that you should be cautious as a man around women in the workforce/as a white person around black people in the workforce/etc.; you will inevitably set yourself up for failure if you assume you have to be cautious around them, because you're inevitably going to start muddying your intent and you will be coming at them from a defensive posture. Treat people like people. If you are truly doing that, you're not going to be frequently running into situations where you have to be cautious.


The "differences" point was more of an add-on, but perhaps you are right that it took away from my main point about being cautious. Although I honestly don't think I've said anything controversial here.

FedFan123

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby FedFan123 » Wed May 03, 2017 12:02 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid, as well as another way women are "other"-ed/excluded in the workplace (unless of course the issue is that you are somehow inclined to say stuff that could be understood as gender stereotyping, or just believe that you don't have any control over that, but I think that says more about you than the woman).

The idea that there may be generalized differences between women and men is, as others have suggested, kind of a red herring, in that you aren't approaching a hypothetical generic woman, but a person in the workplace whom you know as an individual. Any advice on how to deal with a specific individual based on whatever scientific article is going to be less than helpful.


My point was strictly in general, and I specifically said that specific situations could change the equation. However, don't forget that we are probably talking about a big law firm. OP was in corporate and the other associate was in lit, so he had probably never even met her before they started working on this pro bono project together. Thus, OP probably had no idea (and still probably doesn't) about how she would react to these sorts of situations. This is exactly the type of case, where you don't really know the other person other than randomly being thrown on a pro bono project together, where I would "proceed with caution"

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5659
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby rpupkin » Wed May 03, 2017 12:28 pm

FedFan123 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid, as well as another way women are "other"-ed/excluded in the workplace (unless of course the issue is that you are somehow inclined to say stuff that could be understood as gender stereotyping, or just believe that you don't have any control over that, but I think that says more about you than the woman).

The idea that there may be generalized differences between women and men is, as others have suggested, kind of a red herring, in that you aren't approaching a hypothetical generic woman, but a person in the workplace whom you know as an individual. Any advice on how to deal with a specific individual based on whatever scientific article is going to be less than helpful.


My point was strictly in general, and I specifically said that specific situations could change the equation. However, don't forget that we are probably talking about a big law firm. OP was in corporate and the other associate was in lit, so he had probably never even met her before they started working on this pro bono project together. Thus, OP probably had no idea (and still probably doesn't) about how she would react to these sorts of situations. This is exactly the type of case, where you don't really know the other person other than randomly being thrown on a pro bono project together, where I would "proceed with caution"

But why wouldn't one also "proceed with caution" with respect to a male associate whom one didn't know personally?

lawhopeful100

Bronze
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby lawhopeful100 » Wed May 03, 2017 1:08 pm

rpupkin wrote:
FedFan123 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid, as well as another way women are "other"-ed/excluded in the workplace (unless of course the issue is that you are somehow inclined to say stuff that could be understood as gender stereotyping, or just believe that you don't have any control over that, but I think that says more about you than the woman).

The idea that there may be generalized differences between women and men is, as others have suggested, kind of a red herring, in that you aren't approaching a hypothetical generic woman, but a person in the workplace whom you know as an individual. Any advice on how to deal with a specific individual based on whatever scientific article is going to be less than helpful.


My point was strictly in general, and I specifically said that specific situations could change the equation. However, don't forget that we are probably talking about a big law firm. OP was in corporate and the other associate was in lit, so he had probably never even met her before they started working on this pro bono project together. Thus, OP probably had no idea (and still probably doesn't) about how she would react to these sorts of situations. This is exactly the type of case, where you don't really know the other person other than randomly being thrown on a pro bono project together, where I would "proceed with caution"

But why wouldn't one also "proceed with caution" with respect to a male associate whom one didn't know personally?

Idk if this is what FedFan is getting at, but i don't think you need to be too cautious asking a same sex associate you don't know to get hammered on a friday after work. The person might not be into that type of hang out, but I don't think you are weird by asking. Opposite sex situation, I think it could be taken that you are hitting on them or asking them out. I think you would need to tread a little more carefully and make clear you just want to get to know them / resolve the work situation in a comfortable setting.

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed May 03, 2017 1:14 pm

This of course assumes that everyone involved is heterosexual.

Also I think suggesting going out and getting hammered after work is a really bad way to resolve professional issues, with anyone, but hey, I could just be an old fart.

User avatar
elendinel

Silver
Posts: 975
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 12:29 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby elendinel » Wed May 03, 2017 1:15 pm

rpupkin wrote:
FedFan123 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid, as well as another way women are "other"-ed/excluded in the workplace (unless of course the issue is that you are somehow inclined to say stuff that could be understood as gender stereotyping, or just believe that you don't have any control over that, but I think that says more about you than the woman).

The idea that there may be generalized differences between women and men is, as others have suggested, kind of a red herring, in that you aren't approaching a hypothetical generic woman, but a person in the workplace whom you know as an individual. Any advice on how to deal with a specific individual based on whatever scientific article is going to be less than helpful.


My point was strictly in general, and I specifically said that specific situations could change the equation. However, don't forget that we are probably talking about a big law firm. OP was in corporate and the other associate was in lit, so he had probably never even met her before they started working on this pro bono project together. Thus, OP probably had no idea (and still probably doesn't) about how she would react to these sorts of situations. This is exactly the type of case, where you don't really know the other person other than randomly being thrown on a pro bono project together, where I would "proceed with caution"

But why wouldn't one also "proceed with caution" with respect to a male associate whom one didn't know personally?


Cuz them minorities always be freaking out over something or another and don't like to let white dudes get away with anything they get away with.

/s

If you're still reading FedFan, this is why your posts are so controversial. Because you're explaining a position (which seems ill-informed but isn't crazy controversial, if I had it right before) in a way that is borderline insulting if people don't care to try and read in between the lines for you to figure out what you really mean. Words matter as much as intent; people can only understand your intent and your beliefs through the words with which you express them. I'm trying not to read too much into your language and to figure out what you really mean, but the words you use and the way in which you persist in your arguments are making it difficult to do so.

This is where empathy/being able to understand opposing views and how people with different opinions may read your words become crucial. Much more crucial than knowing the sex of the other person or overblown fears of harassment lawsuits. Because it's 100x easier to know how to couch what you want to say to another person if you can put yourself in their shoes for the purpose of the dispute.

FedFan123

New
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:13 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby FedFan123 » Wed May 03, 2017 1:26 pm

elendinel wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
FedFan123 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid, as well as another way women are "other"-ed/excluded in the workplace (unless of course the issue is that you are somehow inclined to say stuff that could be understood as gender stereotyping, or just believe that you don't have any control over that, but I think that says more about you than the woman).

The idea that there may be generalized differences between women and men is, as others have suggested, kind of a red herring, in that you aren't approaching a hypothetical generic woman, but a person in the workplace whom you know as an individual. Any advice on how to deal with a specific individual based on whatever scientific article is going to be less than helpful.


My point was strictly in general, and I specifically said that specific situations could change the equation. However, don't forget that we are probably talking about a big law firm. OP was in corporate and the other associate was in lit, so he had probably never even met her before they started working on this pro bono project together. Thus, OP probably had no idea (and still probably doesn't) about how she would react to these sorts of situations. This is exactly the type of case, where you don't really know the other person other than randomly being thrown on a pro bono project together, where I would "proceed with caution"

But why wouldn't one also "proceed with caution" with respect to a male associate whom one didn't know personally?


Cuz them minorities always be freaking out over something or another and don't like to let white dudes get away with anything they get away with.

/s

If you're still reading FedFan, this is why your posts are so controversial. Because you're explaining a position (which seems ill-informed but isn't crazy controversial, if I had it right before) in a way that is borderline insulting if people don't care to try and read in between the lines for you to figure out what you really mean. Words matter as much as intent; people can only understand your intent and your beliefs through the words with which you express them. I'm trying not to read too much into your language and to figure out what you really mean, but the words you use and the way in which you persist in your arguments are making it difficult to do so.

This is where empathy/being able to understand opposing views and how people with different opinions may read your words become crucial. Much more crucial than knowing the sex of the other person or overblown fears of harassment lawsuits. Because it's 100x easier to know how to couch what you want to say to another person if you can put yourself in their shoes for the purpose of the dispute.


Eh, I went from seeing your point and agreeing to largely not knowing what you are trying to say anymore (other than a lot of fluff) so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree

lolwat

Silver
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby lolwat » Wed May 03, 2017 1:39 pm

rpupkin wrote:But why wouldn't one also "proceed with caution" with respect to a male associate whom one didn't know personally?


I don't think you all are necessarily on different pages here... it just looks to me like some take offense to the fact that the original posts (and FedFan, perhaps) directed their comments specifically towards how they thought a male associate should act differently with a female associate, therefore suggesting some sexism is going on is this thread. Maybe true, maybe people just aren't writing their thoughts clearly, maybe the discussion has focused so much on this male/female thing that people aren't looking at the big picture. I mean, I proceed with caution with anyone whom I don't know -- this includes interactions with women, but it also would include interactions with men. I find it's just better to be cautious because you never know what might piss someone off. I'd also never suggest going out and getting a beer, so maybe this is all moot to me.

One note, though:

For any junior associates or law students reading this, the takeaway is never to seek out pro bono work.


I'd disagree with this comment just because pro bono work might be the only way a junior associate gets "substantive" work at a firm. Just be careful in how you handle that pro bono matter and don't shift all the responsibility on the other associates on it. :P

User avatar
rpupkin

Platinum
Posts: 5659
Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby rpupkin » Wed May 03, 2017 1:39 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:This of course assumes that everyone involved is heterosexual.

Also I think suggesting going out and getting hammered after work is a really bad way to resolve professional issues, with anyone, but hey, I could just be an old fart.

I have lots of friends at work, both male and female. Over the past several years, there have been a couple of instances where some tension arose on a case team and a friend and I went out for a drink after work to talk things out. Getting a drink with a colleague can be an effective way of dealing with a problem.

But if someone I didn't know—male or female—was upset with me about a work matter, I'm of course not going to ask them to spend their Friday night getting drunk with me. That would be socially weird, regardless of sexuality or gender. Instead, I'd probably just visit their office and close the door. If I wanted to talk outside of the office, I'd suggest we get coffee in the middle of the day.

lolwat

Silver
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:30 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby lolwat » Wed May 03, 2017 1:44 pm

rpupkin wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:This of course assumes that everyone involved is heterosexual.

Also I think suggesting going out and getting hammered after work is a really bad way to resolve professional issues, with anyone, but hey, I could just be an old fart.

I have lots of friends at work, both male and female. Over the past several years, there have been a couple of instances where some tension arose on a case team and a friend and I went out for a drink after work to talk things out. Getting a drink with a colleague can be an effective way of dealing with a problem.

But if someone I didn't know—male or female—was upset with me about a work matter, I'm of course not going to ask them to spend their Friday night getting drunk with me. That would be socially weird, regardless of sexuality or gender. Instead, I'd probably just visit their office and close the door. If I wanted to talk outside of the office, I'd suggest we get coffee in the middle of the day.


This exactly. I don't drink, so I tend to avoid this "getting a drink after work" stuff, but I think the point is really to get out of the office in a more relaxed setting to talk things over. Whether that's drinking or something else, I think lawyers just find drinking the most comfortable. :) Plus, it's not like you have to get hammered.

lawhopeful100

Bronze
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:28 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby lawhopeful100 » Wed May 03, 2017 1:46 pm

rpupkin wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:This of course assumes that everyone involved is heterosexual.

Also I think suggesting going out and getting hammered after work is a really bad way to resolve professional issues, with anyone, but hey, I could just be an old fart.

I have lots of friends at work, both male and female. Over the past several years, there have been a couple of instances where some tension arose on a case team and a friend and I went out for a drink after work to talk things out. Getting a drink with a colleague can be an effective way of dealing with a problem.

But if someone I didn't know—male or female—was upset with me about a work matter, I'm of course not going to ask them to spend their Friday night getting drunk with me. That would be socially weird, regardless of sexuality or gender. Instead, I'd probably just visit their office and close the door. If I wanted to talk outside of the office, I'd suggest we get coffee in the middle of the day.

Yea, I was using the friday night drunk example as to where I thought the situation might feel a little different in same gender vs. opposite gender. I agree though, in this situation you probably wouldn't ask someone to get bombed on a friday night with you.

Anonymous User
Posts: 327446
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:32 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Anonymous User » Wed May 03, 2017 2:05 pm

Desert Fox wrote:
lurklaw wrote:For any junior associates or law students reading this, the takeaway is never to seek out pro bono work.

OP here. This is one takeaway for me, but not from any inherent problem with pro bono. I just don't care about it and accordingly my motivation to prioritize it ever is nil. I like my regular work and there's tons of it, and I don't feel any kind of internal moral satisfaction on any of the matters I've worked thus far.

ballouttacontrol

Silver
Posts: 677
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 9:00 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby ballouttacontrol » Wed May 03, 2017 2:08 pm

lolwat wrote:
rpupkin wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:This of course assumes that everyone involved is heterosexual.

Also I think suggesting going out and getting hammered after work is a really bad way to resolve professional issues, with anyone, but hey, I could just be an old fart.

I have lots of friends at work, both male and female. Over the past several years, there have been a couple of instances where some tension arose on a case team and a friend and I went out for a drink after work to talk things out. Getting a drink with a colleague can be an effective way of dealing with a problem.

But if someone I didn't know—male or female—was upset with me about a work matter, I'm of course not going to ask them to spend their Friday night getting drunk with me. That would be socially weird, regardless of sexuality or gender. Instead, I'd probably just visit their office and close the door. If I wanted to talk outside of the office, I'd suggest we get coffee in the middle of the day.


This exactly. I don't drink, so I tend to avoid this "getting a drink after work" stuff, but I think the point is really to get out of the office in a more relaxed setting to talk things over. Whether that's drinking or something else, I think lawyers just find drinking the most comfortable. :) Plus, it's not like you have to get hammered.


just coming back to this thread after the firestorm after my original comment..... and it seems like OP resolved his problem a few pages ago anyways.

the above few posts are about what I meant. I have solved several problems in the past over a happy hour beer (but could equally just be coffee or wtv if you're a non-drinker). However, there is a potential implication that exists for inviting a girl to grab a couple at happy hour that doesn't exist for inviting a guy (assuming you are male here). If you're going to pretend like this doesn't exist, you're putting PC in front of reality.

edit to add: I enjoy my pro bono work, but I actually care, and find it a fun change of pace from my normal work. ymmv I guess

User avatar
Deserving Porcupine

New
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:46 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Deserving Porcupine » Wed May 03, 2017 2:56 pm

ITT: A surprising number of TLSers post comments that may as well start with "No, I'm really not sexist BUT..."

User avatar
A. Nony Mouse

Diamond
Posts: 29306
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:51 am

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby A. Nony Mouse » Wed May 03, 2017 3:20 pm

ballouttacontrol wrote:the above few posts are about what I meant. I have solved several problems in the past over a happy hour beer (but could equally just be coffee or wtv if you're a non-drinker). However, there is a potential implication that exists for inviting a girl to grab a couple at happy hour that doesn't exist for inviting a guy (assuming you are male here). If you're going to pretend like this doesn't exist, you're putting PC in front of reality.

edit to add: I enjoy my pro bono work, but I actually care, and find it a fun change of pace from my normal work. ymmv I guess

Assuming you are male and straight.

Again, if the other associate isn't someone you'd already get a drink with (I agree with rpupkin on that), I don't see why you'd suggest that as a solution to a work problem. (I still don't think working out work problems over a beer is great, because people do go all Mike Pence about - gasp - being out with a woman and boom, people are getting treated differently based on their gender in a way that can exclude women from the old-boys'-club at the bar. If you are actually friends that's something else because presumably it doesn't raise the same horrors as asking a woman you don't know out for a drink.)

User avatar
Lacepiece23

Silver
Posts: 1056
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:10 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Lacepiece23 » Wed May 03, 2017 3:33 pm

A. Nony Mouse wrote:
ballouttacontrol wrote:the above few posts are about what I meant. I have solved several problems in the past over a happy hour beer (but could equally just be coffee or wtv if you're a non-drinker). However, there is a potential implication that exists for inviting a girl to grab a couple at happy hour that doesn't exist for inviting a guy (assuming you are male here). If you're going to pretend like this doesn't exist, you're putting PC in front of reality.

edit to add: I enjoy my pro bono work, but I actually care, and find it a fun change of pace from my normal work. ymmv I guess

Assuming you are male and straight.

Again, if the other associate isn't someone you'd already get a drink with (I agree with rpupkin on that), I don't see why you'd suggest that as a solution to a work problem. (I still don't think working out work problems over a beer is great, because people do go all Mike Pence about - gasp - being out with a woman and boom, people are getting treated differently based on their gender in a way that can exclude women from the old-boys'-club at the bar. If you are actually friends that's something else because presumably it doesn't raise the same horrors as asking a woman you don't know out for a drink.)


Yeah, this. I was working on a case with a female associate--one year my junior. After we got some good news a took her for a drink over lunch. Would have done the same exact thing if she was a dude. I don't think it would be cool not do ask a women out for a drink just because she's female. Also, it doesn't give men an excuse to only ask attractive females out for a drink. This should be gender neutral, but in reality it's definitely not.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Phil Brooks » Wed May 03, 2017 5:08 pm

rpupkin wrote:
FedFan123 wrote:
A. Nony Mouse wrote:The idea that you have to be careful dealing with a woman to avoid accusations of harassment is sort of the flip side of DF's "don't talk about panties to a woman" comment, but I also think it's overblown and paranoid, as well as another way women are "other"-ed/excluded in the workplace (unless of course the issue is that you are somehow inclined to say stuff that could be understood as gender stereotyping, or just believe that you don't have any control over that, but I think that says more about you than the woman).

The idea that there may be generalized differences between women and men is, as others have suggested, kind of a red herring, in that you aren't approaching a hypothetical generic woman, but a person in the workplace whom you know as an individual. Any advice on how to deal with a specific individual based on whatever scientific article is going to be less than helpful.


My point was strictly in general, and I specifically said that specific situations could change the equation. However, don't forget that we are probably talking about a big law firm. OP was in corporate and the other associate was in lit, so he had probably never even met her before they started working on this pro bono project together. Thus, OP probably had no idea (and still probably doesn't) about how she would react to these sorts of situations. This is exactly the type of case, where you don't really know the other person other than randomly being thrown on a pro bono project together, where I would "proceed with caution"

But why wouldn't one also "proceed with caution" with respect to a male associate whom one didn't know personally?


A male associate cannot accuse another male associate of harassment because in the United States, unlike in other developed countries, harassment is a form of discrimination, so it is not actionable unless it is "on the basis of" a protected characteristic, such as gender. It would be difficult to accuse someone of discriminating against his/her own gender.

Phil Brooks

Bronze
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:59 pm

Re: Conflict with same-year colleague

Postby Phil Brooks » Wed May 03, 2017 5:11 pm

Anonymous User wrote:
Desert Fox wrote:
lurklaw wrote:For any junior associates or law students reading this, the takeaway is never to seek out pro bono work.

OP here. This is one takeaway for me, but not from any inherent problem with pro bono. I just don't care about it and accordingly my motivation to prioritize it ever is nil. I like my regular work and there's tons of it, and I don't feel any kind of internal moral satisfaction on any of the matters I've worked thus far.


Why don't you care about pro bono?



Return to “Legal Employment?

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.