New York Lawyer
December 9, 2004

Q:
I am a male associate with a large law firm you would know. In connection with your article last week concerning the alleged disparity between salaries of male and female lawyers, please allow me to highlight the following perspective:

First, according to lockstep salary adjustments, followed by many of the larger firms, salaries are adjudged on class standing, regardless of whether the associate is male or female. If a particular associate agrees to accept a lesser salary than their lockstep counterparts, that is that associate's problem, be they male or female.

Second, assuming the $14,000 disparity to be accurate, I would guess that that would mean a net advantage for female associates over male associates. It amazes me the number of female associates that come into practice, and go out on maternity leave in their first- and second-years of practice, and, in addition, go out again on maternity leave repeatedly in subsequent years. Perhaps the disparity in salaries is due to the three to six month hiatuses female associates take on maternity leave. By way of example, we have one senior associate in my firm who decided that three months was just not enough to take off for her second pregnancy. Rather, she'll be taking off six months. Of course, the firm is not obliged to compensate her for the additional three months, but what about the male associates left behind to take up the slack of the female associates who go out on maternity leave? Not to mention the fact that any male associate who wished to take off three months to take care of his newborn child would be laughed out of the place. In addition, what if a male associate simply decided that he wanted to take off for three or six months generally?

Try to understand that perspective and perhaps it will be clearer as to why female associates supposedly earn less than their male counterparts. Thank you.

Random Guy

Submit Your Question

Find More Answers

A:

Gosh, Random Guy, what do you really think?

Most of your points -- except one very good one -- don�t stand up to scrutiny.

If a firm is truly "lockstep" everyone in a class will be paid the same rate, and if salaries differ based on sex the firm is discriminating based on sex. Most firms award compensation based at least part on merit and other discretionary factors, and it�s in these instances that the hard bargainers come out ahead, even early in practice.

And your explanation for lower female salaries -- that they take maternity leaves -- is misplaced.

First, statistically there simply aren�t many women in their first or second years taking maternity leaves. (In the study I quoted, "After the JD," 76% of the women aged 27 to 32 had no children, as against 64% of the men.)

Second, your complaint that they go out "repeatedly" for maternity leaves seems a little odd. The last time I checked, only women can have children, and in any event most women are out on maternity leaves for relatively brief periods. You also lament the plight of male associates left behind to pick up the slack, neglecting to mention the female associates remaining at the firm who also, presumably, do the extra work.

So, I don�t think most of your points are valid. However, your last point is a winner -- that a male who wanted similar treatment would be "laughed out of the firm." That�s at the root of the resentment that you are describing. Women have received some measure of flexibility in the workplace (at a great price, including stigma and lack of advancement) but this has not resulted in a concomitant flexibility for males. In fact, there�s probably a backlash, in that firms feel obliged to accommodate women in some respect but give very little encouragement to men who might want to do the same.

The proper approach is for workplaces to understand that people at certain times in their lives desire flexibility (for reasons ranging from child care to elder care to simply wanting a life). Increasingly it�s appropriate for firms to be flexible if the person is someone they want to retain and if firms can continue making a profit while allowing flexibility. A fairer, more equitable set of policies is a surefire way to combat the kind of resentment that you are feeling. Ease up on your anger at women and think about whether firm policies might be the bigger culprit.

Sincerely,
Holly English