Pay Equity Suits Could Impact Recruitment of Female Partners

, The Am Law Daily

   | 2 Comments

A handful of gender bias suits against law firms this year could make it all the more difficult for firms without women in leadership positions to attract female lateral partners, consultants say.

This premium content is reserved for American Lawyer subscribers.

Continue reading by getting started with a subscription.

Already a subscriber? Log in now

What's being said

  • MaleMatters

    Consider first: When a young man learns that females prefer to date and marry “up,” he may believe that without success or the proven will to succeed, he will be sentenced to a life deprived of a woman’s love (not to mention society’s respect). This belief may lead many men, consciously or unconsciously, to link self-worth to net worth. This male linkage represents the major difference in the sexes’ psychology about earning money. Thus the expectation of male success as a provider discriminates against men just as the expectation of child-raiser discriminates against women. It stops men from even thinking about becoming a secretary or other low-paid worker who doesn’t earn enough to give a wife the option of working, staying home, or using some combination of the two. (This may help explain why many men in lower-paid “female” jobs are gay: to gay men, women’s expectation of male success is irrelevant.) I once heard it said, “Which sex dominates a job determines the job’s pay.” It’s actually the other way around: a job’s pay determines which sex dominates the job. Advertise a position paying only $15,000 a year, and mostly females will apply. Advertise one paying $75,000, and mostly men will apply. Just as society has steered women into low-paid jobs, it continues to steer men away from low-paid jobs and into jobs which pay more — and which men pay more for with greater seniority and education, as well as with a job accident rate six times higher than women’s and a job death rate 15 times higher. Now consider: Most feminist activists and other women‘s advocates seem to believe employers are fiercely determined to pay women less than men for the same work. Yet they also seem to think employers‘ prime modus operandi is greed. ("Corporate greed" is perhaps one of their most salient rallying calls.) Thus they no doubt believe employers would hire only illegal immigrants for their lower labor cost if they could get away with it (many do get away with it), or would move their business to a cheap-labor country to save money, or would replace old workers with young ones for the same reason. So why do these same feminist activists and women‘s advocates think employers would NOT hire only women if, as they say, employers DO get away with paying females at a lower rate than males for the same work? From: “The Doctrinaire Institute for Women‘s Policy Research: A Comprehensive Look at Gender Equality” malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/the-doctrinaire-institute-for-womens-policy-research/

  • Hazel Burke

    Why would any firm want to recruit costly, more easily distracted female partners?

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202766886215

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.