Fired, pregnant Forum

[LSATWiz.com]

So if OP were to sue and the firm finds this thread, can they use this thread to argue that the suit is for monetary reasons? OP was "in a bind" due to the market etc, and she strategized with others online about a potential "seven figure lawsuit." An employment lawyer even popped in to the thread.

Not saying that argument is valid, just a possibility.

This isn't legal advice but nothing in this thread would weaken OP's claim. OP never stated she doesn't feel discriminated against, just that she's not interest in suing over it, which only makes her sound more honorable.

It is pretty ironic that the right to maternity leave exists to give women the right to choose their career without having to forego childbirth yet often works to deprive them of the right to choose their career as the employer makes the decision for them. One would almost prefer a system where employers were free to discriminate against pregnant woman as long as they advertised their anti-women policies on all job postings and disclosed it at interviews. This would allow them to discriminate with impunity and also allow women wishing to have the option to get pregnant the right to choose between a firm that will discriminate against them and a firm that will not discriminate against them. At least some women may prefer to work for a firm that will not discriminate against them, and they deserve to know the policies upfront.

I know OP won't and should not out the firm, but if I were a woman in law school choosing between firms, I'd certainly want to know which firm is anti-women before devoting a major portion of my life to them.

Have to strongly disagree. Are you a trial attorney? I have had a number of clients seriously undermine their civil and criminal cases due to posting on social media or forums. Not once have I seen statements in a public forum ever assist a case, but I have seen it land people in jail or result in additional felony criminal charges. This isn't a criminal case, but the lesson is still similar. There could be members of this same V100 firm on TLS, and the OP's situation is specific enough to potentially out her.

If she was my client, I would not want her making these statements in a public forum, anonymous or not, even if the statements are hearsay within hearsay or have foundational issues:

"It wasn’t performance-based. We just had reviews, and mine were actually great. Without going into detail, it was a combination of a struggling practice group and a personality conflict with a key player. In general, it wasn’t a great situation, and I was likely to leave on my own soon."

Let's pretend OP changes her mind and decides to sue the firm. How are you going to establish damages if your client is admitting that she was likely going to voluntarily leave anyway? There is ample cross-examination or impeachment material there depending on how the case unfolds. The best option is to make no statement, because being locked in is very rarely worth the value of putting a position on record. A party being honorable doesn't mean much in a courtroom. If you tried to admit that portion, I'd object and keep it out as self-serving hearsay (the hearsay exception for statement of party-opponent doesn't apply when a party is trying to introduce their own out of court hearsay statement).

If there actually was discrimination, I doubt this was the first time it manifested itself. Like any form of discrimination, you probably have a bunch of small and subtle events before a major event. It's possible small sexist comments left a general bad taste in OP's mouth before being fired for getting pregnant, which again wouldn't be something I fault the firm for if they promoted their anti-pregnancy policy on all firm issued marketing materials, but I would feel the same way about most forms of discrimination.

I don't think most would say that the existing legislature has provided an adequate remedy for combating discrimination against minorities, women, and the disabled. Long term, there'd probably be much less discrimination if discriminatory practices were legally protected but discriminatory policies were required to be disclosed in marketing materials and advertised to all prospective candidates to be shielded from liability, and if discrimination occurred that was not advertised, damages were automatically trebled. I think the free market would be far more effective at combating discrimination than the legal system itself. It seems as though the current legislation, which victims cannot utilize without punting their careers is more about protecting the image of the discriminators than actually combating discrimination.

[QContinuum]

I don't think most would say that the existing legislature has provided an adequate remedy for combating discrimination against minorities, women, and the disabled. Long term, there'd probably be much less discrimination if discriminatory practices were legally protected but discriminatory policies were required to be disclosed in marketing materials and advertised to all prospective candidates to be shielded from liability, and if discrimination occurred that was not advertised, damages were automatically trebled. I think the free market would be far more effective at combating discrimination than the legal system itself. It seems as though the current legislation, which victims cannot utilize without punting their careers is more about protecting the image of the discriminators than actually combating discrimination.

Off-topic (but then again this thread has already caromed pretty well off course...): The above sounds good in theory but, IMO, would never work in practice. 1) SCOTUS would strike down any such legislation on 1A grounds. All 5 conservatives would vote to strike down on compelled-speech grounds (because you just know there'd be some kind of super-sympathetic religious Christian that the law harms, maybe some person like Hobby Lobby), and it's possible some or even all of the liberals would join them. 2) Even if upheld against constitutional attack, very few employers would want to advertise themselves as discriminatory, and so would continue to follow the current system anyway - claiming to embrace equal opportunity, but not living up to that in practice. And then victims would be right back where we started - having the right to sue, but facing a very high career cost to actually bringing suit.

[nixy]

Yeah, entities aren't going to hold themselves out as discriminatory. Religious institutions do so, in the sense of advertising for employees who conform to the religious mission, but that's the exception that proves the rule, in particular because (broadly speaking) holding religious beliefs isn't seen as a bad thing in the US. There is no way you're going to get employers describing themselves as preferring to hire men over women (or white people over people of color, or US-born people over immigrants, or the like). At the very least, I'd bet that most people who (impermissibly) discriminate don't realize they're doing so (they don't have any problem with *women* or *people of color* or *immigrants,* just that one specific woman/black person/immigrant who's really never fit in or succeeded here).

[LSATWiz.com]

Yeah, entities aren't going to hold themselves out as discriminatory. Religious institutions do so, in the sense of advertising for employees who conform to the religious mission, but that's the exception that proves the rule, in particular because (broadly speaking) holding religious beliefs isn't seen as a bad thing in the US. There is no way you're going to get employers describing themselves as preferring to hire men over women (or white people over people of color, or US-born people over immigrants, or the like). At the very least, I'd bet that most people who (impermissibly) discriminate don't realize they're doing so (they don't have any problem with *women* or *people of color* or *immigrants,* just that one specific woman/black person/immigrant who's really never fit in or succeeded here).

There’d be problems in practice but the added harm in OP’s case is that if OP was discriminated against, there ARE firms that would not have discriminated against pregnancy and in spite of vault ranking/prestige, this would have been the single greatest variable for anyone choosing between employers and intended to have children in the next few years. If the firm did discriminate, we have to assume they wanted to discriminate and OP wilted away great economic years when they could have lateraled for a firm that probably always would have discriminated against her if she became pregnant. I just feel that there is a way for the firm to have been able to discriminate and OP not to have been discriminated against that would have been more fruitful for both sides than OP having to choose between letting it go (win for the firm, lose for OP) and OP having to risk ending their career to get justice, which will come at harming the firm’s reputation and financial resources (arguably a lose-lose result). I don’t know what the beat case fix is but I’d be hard pressed if it’s this one.

I think the general takeaway point is that it unfortunately may be imprudent to tell coworkers at law firms that you are getting married, much less that you are pregnant until you absolutely cannot hide it. While it’s human nature to share life events with those you spend a great deal of time with, it can’t really help and can hurt if the powers that be lack basic human empathy.

I do think that OP simply voicing the disconnect between the reviews and result, and fact this happened right after she revealed she was pregnant at least internally would probably get a better result if handled correctly. I definitely would not sign anything exculpating the firm as severance packages often require until emotion has subsided and they have fully weighed all of their options.

[nixy]

I just feel that there is a way for the firm to have been able to discriminate and OP not to have been discriminated against that would have been more fruitful for both sides than OP having to choose between letting it go (win for the firm, lose for OP) and OP having to risk ending their career to get justice, which will come at harming the firm’s reputation and financial resources (arguably a lose-lose result).

"Letting" firms discriminate on the basis of pregnancy just isn't a good thing, though. I'm not really worried about what happens to a firm that decides to do so. I agree that the OP is still in a difficult situation, but am not sure why the firm's interests really matter here.

[Halp]

I agree that the OP is still in a difficult situation, but am not sure why the firm's interests really matter here.

mAxiMIziNg uTiLItY

[LSATWiz.com]

MoFo just settled with 5 pregnant women in a class action alleging $200MM in damages. Financial terms are and will probably remain unclear. IDK if this helps OP in any way but certainly suggests that they are certainly not the only pregnant woman to complain about this practice.

Jane Doe 1 et al. v. Morrison & Foerster LLP, case number 3:18-cv-02542.