Sex discrimination has long been an issue in the workplace, but in law firms, the subject leaves lawyers in a predicament of whether they should sue their firm and risk their careers, or take alternative actions that could promote change.
The subject is explored by UH sociology professor and attorney Amanda Baumle in her new book titled Sex Discrimination and Law Firm Culture on the Internet: Lawyers at the Information Age Watercooler. Baumle examines how lawyers can combat sex discrimination without jeopardizing their careers or suing their employers.
‘People have this perception that lawyers are very litigious, and they’re going to be the ones to sue in a case like this,’ Baumle said. ‘And actually, lawyers are very hesitant to file a lawsuit or to file a claim ‘hellip; regarding sex discrimination or sexual harassment; it’s partly that lawyers are much more likely to be aware of the fact that the law has actually been pretty ineffectual in addressing sex discrimination and sexual harassment, so they know they’re not likely to win.’
Baumle said that despite the fact that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination at the workplace, discrimination language is vague, leaving it generally open with numerous issues to be defined as discriminatory.
Sex discrimination involves disparate treatment between men and women, including assigning different types of jobs, denying promotions and awarding different monetary incentives or salaries based on gender.
This leaves the decision of what constitutes sex discrimination to rest with judges who are predominantly male, and few men experience this kind of discrimination, Baumle said.
‘The people who are mostly defining (discrimination) are the people who are less likely to have ever experienced it and to understand the effects discrimination or harassment can have on your work life,’ Baumle said.
Baumle’s book focuses mainly on the sexual discrimination and harassment of female attorneys. While working at a labor and employment law firm, Baumle dealt with cases involving race and gender discrimination.
While completing her law degree, a salary increase at law firms took place, leading people to communicate online whether or not their firms were participating in the raises.
Many Web sites developed because of this topic, and Baumle found GreedyAssociates.com where the online community discussed salaries and other issues at their firms, including sex discrimination. This Web site became Baumle’s sole source for her three-year study of how online discourse could be a tool to change law firms’ behaviors toward discrimination without forcing those discriminated against to take legal action.
‘The online community allows attorneys, because it’s anonymous, to explain their situation and are able to assert certain rights and receive responses from other associate attorneys and partners of law firms,’ Baumle said. ‘It ends up to some degree reaffirming their assertion that they have rights to a workplace environment that’s free from this type of discrimination, even if the law itself has not found that type of a legal right.’
When attorneys make public the type of activities occurring in law firms, it will often illicit a response from law managers, partners and the media, Baumle said. This may then compel the firms to change their practices.
‘It basically labels law firms as law violators regardless of whether they would be found to violate the law, and it would potentially ‘hellip; alter gender behavior within the law firm,’ Baumle said.
However, claims posted online typically invoke a denial from the accused law firms, who call the claims mere allegations or simply do not respond to them. In any case, this is a potential outlet to avoid some of the career consequences that could develop from filing a lawsuit, Baumle said.
‘I think that’s the reality that many ‘hellip; attorneys are facing, that in making a decision whether to file (a) lawsuit, ultimately many will instead choose to leave their employment or to find an alternative means of working around the job,’ Baumle said. ‘That conflict and tension between the fact that they are trained in taking legal action – and yet, at the same time, their legal knowledge and place within a legal position – which curtails their ability to do that, is what I found interesting.’
