Fired, pregnant Forum

[Anonymous User]

7th year, V100, given the talk today. 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.

But the firm is only giving me until the end of the year on the website, which, with the holidays, seems like a pretty unrealistic timeframe for a senior to land something else in a practice area that isn’t too hot right now. And to complicate matters, I’m 3.5 months pregnant with my first (yes, the decision-makers knew; no, I’m not outing the firm or contemplating pursuing any action against them).

So I don’t know what to do at this point. Do I try to hustle and find something before the end of the year? If so, should I be upfront about the pregnancy in interviews, or do I wait until I have an offer and spring it on them then, which may risk starting off on a bad note? The latter approach seems risky given that I’m likely too senior for any subsequent move as an associate, and I’m not particularly interested in leaving firm practice to go in house anytime soon. Do I take a break and try to re-enter practice after having the baby? Give up altogether?

The market I’m in is small and other opportunities in my practice area in the same market are basically nonexistent, so getting a new job will likely mean uprooting everyone and moving to a different market. That really wouldn’t be great timing, as all of our family is close to where we are now. Spouse makes a livable salary but significantly less than mine, and frankly, I really don’t want to quit working and stay home. I’m not sure I have other realistic options now, though.

[BrainsyK]

Ask for more time on the website. You may not want to pursue any action, but first, they don't know that--at least I hope they don't because that seems to me like a valuable bargaining chip--and second, they know that you know that they know and the least they can do to relieve themselves of any concern of any action is give more time on the website, which literally costs them nothing. The only reason I can think of is the key player, but I'm assuming that the relationship with the office as a whole isn't actively hostile so I think that you'd be okay at least asking for that.

[papermateflair]

Your firm is firing a pregnant woman who has great reviews, the least they can do is keep you on the website until you land on your feet - including through the end of your maternity leave. The reality is that this is a bad look for them, even if you aren't interested in pursuing anything and they didn't actually fire you for your pregnancy, and so they need to be more flexible. "Great reviews, fired just after firm found out she was pregnant" is like, an employment lawyer's dream/nightmare - and your firm knows that. Don't take their first offer of just website time until January - they need to do a lot more for you.

My firm hired a lateral who was pregnant at the time, and obviously she didn't tell them until after she started. I think it rubbed some people the wrong way, but reasonable people will understand that pregnant women are in a bind, and they still gave her the full paid maternity leave and it all worked out.

[QContinuum]

Your firm is firing a pregnant woman who has great reviews, the least they can do is keep you on the website until you land on your feet - including through the end of your maternity leave. The reality is that this is a bad look for them, even if you aren't interested in pursuing anything and they didn't actually fire you for your pregnancy, and so they need to be more flexible. "Great reviews, fired just after firm found out she was pregnant" is like, an employment lawyer's dream/nightmare - and your firm knows that. Don't take their first offer of just website time until January - they need to do a lot more for you.

Agree with the above. Admittedly none of us knows all the details here, and I'd venture that none of us are employment lawyers either, but even just from a "woman on the street" perspective, the timing of this really does smack of pregnancy discrimination. OP's had great reviews and has made it all the way to 7th year. At a secondary-market V100, making it to 7th year is generally a sign that one has a serious shot at partnership, at least non-equity. Presumably the personality conflict isn't a new thing (presumably her secondary-market office isn't huge and she's worked with/interacted with this "key player" over her past 7 years at the firm), and also presumably the practice group being slow isn't a new thing. And all of a sudden these preexisting factors are being raised as reasons to fire OP now, despite her great reviews, just "coincidentally" right after she's disclosed she's pregnant for the first time? This really looks like the firm not wanting to cover OP's maternity leave.

I'm not saying OP ought to sue the firm, but if I were in her shoes I'd negotiate hard for more - longer runway and longer website time. (It sounds like OP was let go with zero notice, or at most 2 weeks?)

[kaiser]

I think you need to bargain a bit to at least keep your profile up on the site. Its not asking much, especially if the firm isn't paying you any more past year end (you didn't mention how much longer you are staying on the payroll so I am just assuming until year's end). And even that in itself is pretty cheap. I would think that a 7th year, well-reviewed associate whom they know is pregnant would be given a few months to land on her feet. That courtesy is often extended to far more junior associates, even ones who don't have stellar reviews. I wouldn't necessarily pitch it as a threat of lawsuit, but of course your pregnancy and situation plays into your rationale for why a few extra months on the website would be immensely helpful.

I am an employment lawyer, but I'm going to hold off on delving into the legal issues here. Too many details missing at the moment, and at least for now, its not like you are contemplating a lawsuit anyway.

[notinbiglaw]

I would ask for pay for whatever remains on your maternity leave and more time on website.

The situation looks seriously terrible for the firm.

[QContinuum]

I would ask for pay for whatever remains on your maternity leave and more time on website.

The situation looks seriously terrible for the firm.

"Whatever remains" is all of it, right? It doesn't sound like OP's taken any leave so far - she's barely out of the first trimester - and this is her first kid.

Also, on a slightly different note, since this wasn't addressed earlier ITT: OP, please, please don't give in to familial pressure (if any) to stay home. It sounds like you both love your job and are great at it (as evidenced by your great reviews and by the fact of you surviving 'til year 7, which is no mean feat). Unless you want to take a break* and/or stay home - and it sounds like you don't, at least right now - don't do it. (Especially re: break: I'm sure you're aware that - as unfair as it is - taking a break would likely make it significantly harder for you to break back in post-break.)

*By "break" I mean a break significantly longer than typical maternity leave, e.g., anything significantly longer than half a year.

[Tyler_Durden]

I would think about the situation in this context: if your former firm had a potential seven figure lawsuit against you, what would they do?

Would the firm forego that seven figure recovery out of some abstract sense of loyalty?

Many states permit plaintiffs to sue as "Jane Doe;" mitigating identity concerns.

If you're good at what you do, you will get another job. But this is a potential opportunity beyond just finding another job.

[LBJ's Hair]

I would think about the situation in this context: if your former firm had a potential seven figure lawsuit against you, what would they do?

Would the firm forego that seven figure recovery out of some abstract sense of loyalty?

Many states permit plaintiffs to sue as "Jane Doe;" mitigating identity concerns.

If you're good at what you do, you will get another job. But this is a potential opportunity beyond just finding another job.

mmm. Think the (implied) threat of filing could be way valuable than the actual claim.

OP's in a small market, sounds like practice area isn't doing super hot. She doesn't want a public fight with ex-employer to be the first thing everyone thinks of when they hear her name. That's a great way to guarantee she never works in Big/MidLaw in this market again. Unless OP's pretty confident a suit would get her "fuck you" money, is it really worth it? Depends on your risk profile, but I'm leaning no. Similarly, OP's firm doesn't want its name associated with...firing pregnant women. Any lawsuit, regardless of the outcome, would be bad.

So the obvious solution is some sort of informal settlement...and this is where IMO OP has leverage. Unless the firm is full of morons (very possible), they should be *terrified* of her getting ultra pissed about this and doing something "irrational" but very damaging to them...like filing an EEOC complaint/suing for gender discrimination.

So OP says hey, I think I need a little more than this. What about indefinite website time plus 6 mos severance (or w/e)? I'm 3 months pregnant, this is sort of out of left field, feel like I was left out to dry just as I was getting ready to go on maternity leave. (Hint, hint, hint.) Firm says you know what, that's a great idea. Hey, why don't you also sign this document that says "I agree to [not sue]."

Just spitballing. Also to be clear OP---on your side. This is bullshit.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Considering they fired a pregnant woman with good reviews I would say yes, they are full of morons.

This is the kind of thing that one or two idiot partners talk about and someone else usually steps in and kicks them in the ass for being morons. I’m surprised they actually fired OP.

[LBJ's Hair]

Considering they fired a pregnant woman with good reviews I would say yes, they are full of morons.

This is the kind of thing that one or two idiot partners talk about and someone else usually steps in and kicks them in the ass for being morons. I’m surprised they actually fired OP.

true

[Alive97]

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.

[notinbiglaw]

It looks bad even without good reviews. I tried to fire someone that had bad reviews at a trading firm and legal wouldn’t let me do it. She wasn’t even pregnant.

We had to get a lot of communications in writing and eventually left a 3 months pile of paper trail to back up the bad reviews to fire the person. And we still paid her full bonus for the year (which was almost full salary for the year in question where I was.)

Firing a pregnant woman with great reviews and probably in line for partnership is just incredibly dumb and it won’t take the lawyers at the firm much to figure out they goofed as soon as OP even asks to negotiate on the severance package.

[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.

[QContinuum]

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.

Seconding the above in its entirety (including, to be clear, the advice that OP "won't and should not out the firm", as doing so would not be in her own best interests). But I'd go even one step further and say that anyone - including straight, able, conventionally attractive WASP men - would be wise to avoid firms that discriminate against (pregnant) women. Firms that are willing to treat women or minorities badly are, as a rule, more willing to treat any employee badly. Do we really think OP's firm would have responded well to, say, a man in OP's shoes requesting a leave of absence for health reasons? It's possible, but the odds aren't good.

[Best]

Why are we going straight to accusing the firm of discriminating?

Op says,

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.

[QContinuum]

Why are we going straight to accusing the firm of discriminating?

Op says,

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.

We answered this question above. For example:

OP's had great reviews and has made it all the way to 7th year. At a secondary-market V100, making it to 7th year is generally a sign that one has a serious shot at partnership, at least non-equity. Presumably the personality conflict isn't a new thing (presumably her secondary-market office isn't huge and she's worked with/interacted with this "key player" over her past 7 years at the firm), and also presumably the practice group being slow isn't a new thing. And all of a sudden these preexisting factors are being raised as reasons to fire OP now, despite her great reviews, just "coincidentally" right after she's disclosed she's pregnant for the first time? This really looks like the firm not wanting to cover OP's maternity leave.

[Swarley]

Ask for more time on the website. You may not want to pursue any action, but first, they don't know that--at least I hope they don't because that seems to me like a valuable bargaining chip--and second, they know that you know that they know and the least they can do to relieve themselves of any concern of any action is give more time on the website, which literally costs them nothing. The only reason I can think of is the key player, but I'm assuming that the relationship with the office as a whole isn't actively hostile so I think that you'd be okay at least asking for that.

Lol'd at this

[Anonymous User]

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).

[Wubbles]

Jfc to the brave anon above. Leaving on your own terms and being terminated without a new job are completely different situations. If there was some sort of "trial" I'm sure the court would be intelligent enough to figure that one out.

[The Lsat Airbender]

*claims to be a battle-hardened trial attorney*

*thinks a deep-pocketed, reputation-oriented client like a biglaw firm would take this dirty bomb of a dispute to trial*

[Anonymous User]

No one has responded to the actual evidentiary issues raised or how they might affect a trial outcome or settlement negotiation. Everyone wants to endorse the original post as not having any adverse trial consequence if this goes to trial.

That's totally fine if OP wants to make these statements and isn't worried about litigation (I was in a similar position once and spoke openly about it because I knew I wasn't going to sue my employer). But what's not acceptable is purportedly licensed attorneys here telling her that the statements are a non-issue if the matter ends up being litigated. What's even more alarming is the inability to take any pushback on that position, which is arguably patently false. Clearly not trial lawyers and I would question whether or not you are actual barred attorneys in any state. If you are licensed, you probably have never stepped inside a courtroom and made an argument affecting someone's finances or their freedom. It's astonishing how flippant you can be about constructive advice that applies to real world legal situations.

Never assume that something your client or another party says will not come back to bite you. Just because you don't think a case will end up in litigation has very little bearing on whether or not it will. Why would you ever counsel someone to make statements that foreclose their future legal options? It's asinine. The issue is not whether or not a lawsuit arises about this (unlikely as the OP acknowledged), the issue is about having the common sense to counsel a potential client against making inculpatory/disadvantageous statements in a public forum. If you can't distinguish those issues, there is no helping you and I hope you have decent malpractice insurance.

[alawyer2018]

I tend to agree with anon above. If this actually went to litigation, a simple discovery request along the lines of "all non-privilege statements you've made regarding this dispute" would implicate OP's posts here. To those doubting anon above, would you recommend OP simply not produce these statements if called for by a discovery request?

Again, this has nothing to do with the likelihood of the dispute going to litigation. It likely will not, at least based on the facts at hand. But as anon said, why unnecessarily foreclose/hurt certain options, no matter how improbable those options might be?

None of the foregoing is legal advice or should be construed as such.

[Anonymous User]

The above seems a little dramatic. What statement is so damaging? That she wanted to leave soon anyway? Even if the post would come in there is a nuance between leaving on her own voluntarily and being involuntarily let go under these circumstances. You can want to leave a job and still not be fired for being pregnant. Also, the employer didn't know that she was going to leave, and got great reviews (didn't effect work), so not sure how the statement would be of serious consequence. Money is inherently involved in any potential suit like this, so not sure how that would be of serious consequence either.

[nealric]

MOD NOTE: Please refrain from discussing the merits or strategy of any potential litigation on OP's part.