Top Law Schools

This is more just because it seems like an interesting topic in these slower times, with the slowdown (and therefore, I guess possible layoffs over the next few months), does informing HR/your group that you will be taking paternity or maternity leave protect you in the short term (e.g. does it become more difficult to fire you?). To bring this back to me, my partner and I plan on getting pregnant in the next couple of months. While I am not currently worried necessarily about being laid off, would this keep me safe over the period of pregnancy + 3 months paternity leave? If so, does it at all help to inform the firm earlier in the pregnancy than you might want (e.g. telling HR/group in the 2nd trimester instead of 3rd trimester).

This might be kind of a silly question but I've thought about it a couple of times and wanted to get some thoughts. To the extent helpful, I'm a junior/midlevel at a V50 NYC corporate practice and otherwise have good reviews.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 1:35 pm

This is more just because it seems like an interesting topic in these slower times, with the slowdown (and therefore, I guess possible layoffs over the next few months), does informing HR/your group that you will be taking paternity or maternity leave protect you in the short term (e.g. does it become more difficult to fire you?). To bring this back to me, my partner and I plan on getting pregnant in the next couple of months. While I am not currently worried necessarily about being laid off, would this keep me safe over the period of pregnancy + 3 months paternity leave? If so, does it at all help to inform the firm earlier in the pregnancy than you might want (e.g. telling HR/group in the 2nd trimester instead of 3rd trimester).

This might be kind of a silly question but I've thought about it a couple of times and wanted to get some thoughts. To the extent helpful, I'm a junior/midlevel at a V50 NYC corporate practice and otherwise have good reviews.

Maybe in the near term, I guess if they don't want the risk that you will accuse them of retaliating against you for taking leave? But I have seen people "counseled out" a month after they return from leave, so any protection is short-lived. Major problem is that no one really knows where the economy is going to be in a year, so you could be setting yourself up as an easy target when your leave ends, which would be stressful. Too many unknowns would mean that I wouldn't factor this into my family planning decisions at all.

Pregnancy absolutely makes it less likely that you'll be fired during your pregnancy or several months after you return from leave.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 2:30 pm

Maybe in the near term, I guess if they don't want the risk that you will accuse them of retaliating against you for taking leave? But I have seen people "counseled out" a month after they return from leave, so any protection is short-lived. Major problem is that no one really knows where the economy is going to be in a year, so you could be setting yourself up as an easy target when your leave ends, which would be stressful. Too many unknowns would mean that I wouldn't factor this into my family planning decisions at all.

Would you consider 9 months + ~4 months leave only "near term"? If you think the recession will hit within a year and that firms will trim the fat soon after, surviving that first wave might leave OP safe on the other side. And sure, you're more likely to be counseled out after leave than before, but a new parent with no apparent performance issues getting axed as soon as they return seems like a sympathetic plaintiff to me. OP may be in better shape than the associates whose annualization drops significantly from where OP is while OP is out on leave (assuming OP can keep the work coming beforehand).

All I'm saying is for a middle of the pack performer, I think a well timed parental leave could make a difference.

Elizabeth Holmes Type Beat

swiftyredalbum wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:50 pm

Pregnancy is not relevant.
It's all about money and the value you add to the firm.
Recess is over.
If you want a friend at the office, buy a dog.

Why wouldn't pregnancy buy someone time? They're not going to be fired during maternity leave, nor in the next several months following maternity leave. That's worth something.

Res Ipsa Loquitter wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 7:59 pm

swiftyredalbum wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:50 pm

Pregnancy is not relevant.
It's all about money and the value you add to the firm.
Recess is over.
If you want a friend at the office, buy a dog.

Why wouldn't pregnancy buy someone time? They're not going to be fired during maternity leave, nor in the next several months following maternity leave. That's worth something.

Pretty sure this is sweedishblue all over again.

Know a person at KE (international office) who had 3 kids in 4 years and made full salary + bonus and regular promotions despite working like only 10 months out of those 4 years. In the near term pregnancy is an unfireable condition in Corporate America. Probably a good thing she left for an in-house role after pregnancy 3.

For reference, in my current firm (ibank), an ibd associate that the group head wanted to cull registered as pregnant a month before the suspected layoff. As a result a male analyst was fired instead. She's now threatening hr claiming miscarriage from job induced stress. Biglaw probably very similar wrt pregnancies.

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 10:29 pm

Know a person at KE (international office) who had 3 kids in 4 years and made full salary + bonus and regular promotions despite working like only 10 months out of those 4 years. In the near term pregnancy is an unfireable condition in Corporate America. Probably a good thing she left for an in-house role after pregnancy 3.

For reference, in my current firm (ibank), an ibd associate that the group head wanted to cull registered as pregnant a month before the suspected layoff. As a result a male analyst was fired instead. She's now threatening hr claiming miscarriage from job induced stress. Biglaw probably very similar wrt pregnancies.

Just objectively untrue. Being pregnant or being on pregnancy leave don't protect one from layoffs as a matter of law or practice in corporate America. You just can't lay someone off as *retaliation* for taking leave.

I would say it's slightly different in law firms, which are super risk averse and PR sensitive, but not true at all in broader corporate America.

Experienced employment litigator here on the defense side (well over a decade, maybe even more than 2 decades).

It is well known that law firms are often the worst offenders of employment discrimination laws in the universe. Still, they tend to be staffed with competent HR administrators who for obvious reasons are well-versed in the legal risks of blatantly firing someone who has made it publicly known to the firm that they are pregnant. Picture a law firm like you would any narcissistic psychopath with sociopathic tendencies. The firm doesn't normally react to situations based on a "is this the right thing to do" basis. It reacts only to fear, or to financial incentives.

So, on one hand, your pregnancy announcement will trigger anger inside the firm's head because it knows that dollars and cents will be taken out of its pockets because of your damn baby (may God bless the cute little munchkin but I'm using the firm's voice here). On the other hand, one of the easiest employment discrimination legal claims to assert is when you announce pregnancy and within close proximity to that announcement, absent extraordinary circumstances, the firm suddenly decides that you are not suitable for employment even though you were just a few months earlier. This is fear. Psychopaths do react to fear. You will be safe for a certain extended period of time. Just beware of when that time period runs out though.

swiftyredalbum wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:50 pm

Pregnancy is not relevant.
It's all about money and the value you add to the firm.
Recess is over.
If you want a friend at the office, buy a dog.

Who is this troll shitting up every thread with flame shitpoasting.

"troll"
"shitting up"
"shitpoasting"

All in one sentence

Can't top it

You win

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 11, 2022 1:19 pm

swiftyredalbum wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:50 pm

Pregnancy is not relevant.
It's all about money and the value you add to the firm.
Recess is over.
If you want a friend at the office, buy a dog.

Who is this troll shitting up every thread with flame shitpoasting.

Danish blue take 5 billion. The dude must have some big grudge, no life, or both. So basically your average TLS poster.

I already tapped out above

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 11, 2022 2:37 pm

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 11, 2022 1:19 pm

swiftyredalbum wrote: ↑

Thu Nov 10, 2022 6:50 pm

Pregnancy is not relevant.
It's all about money and the value you add to the firm.
Recess is over.
If you want a friend at the office, buy a dog.

Who is this troll shitting up every thread with flame shitpoasting.

Danish blue take 5 billion. The dude must have some big grudge, no life, or both. So basically your average TLS poster.

Just adds no value to anything or anyone - very sad, many posters saying this. I say BAN!

Wouldn't this clearly count as discrimination on pregnancy status? Or do courts interpret it as permissable like they do affirmative action?

Anonymous User wrote: ↑

Fri Nov 11, 2022 5:03 pm

Wouldn't this clearly count as discrimination on pregnancy status? Or do courts interpret it as permissable like they do affirmative action?

the point isn't that firms are giving pregnant people an advantage that they wouldn't give non-pregnant people, it's that they'd be afraid to take some kind of adverse action for fear of being sued for pregnancy discrimination. Also, the law prevents employers from discriminating on the basis of pregnancy, it doesn't prevent employers from firing a non-pregnant employee if there's some kind of non-suspect reason for doing so. I doubt courts have had to interpret this b/c I doubt anyone who's been fired or laid-off has brought a suit saying they were discriminated against b/c the firm didn't fire/lay off the pregnant employee instead.

It does. But they still might can a pregnant woman. The severance or settlement will be juicier in that circumstance.

The problem with asking questions like this from TLS is you'll have a bunch of unqualified people talking out of their ass, totally speculating without any basis on how law firm management will react to something. I know of two women who were fired during pregnancy from biglaw. It absolutely happens and you shouldn't let rando associates on a message board convince you that you're safe.