Female Attorney Case

In this case study, it appeared that the female attorney decided to take things in her own hand instead of doing the right thing and filing a grievance in the employee relations department. As an attorney, she should have been more aware of her employee rights. The way that she was treated was very unfair and unprofessional and there could have been a different outcome if she had properly thought the situation through. When the attorney was hired, the fact that she was a parent should not have had a bad bearing on her qualifications for the position. When she proceeded to withhold information about her being a parent should not have been a deal breaker in her being selected for the position. The attorney should have been honest about being a parent. She should have reported the partner to the board at the first sign of any unfair treatment and other acts of discrimination (Walsh, 2013). Making statements such as “the commitment differential between men and women” should have been documented and also reported as soon as the words were said to the proper person. No matter how hard a person works, everyone has a personal life outside of their work. When a company or
individual is a part of workplace discrimination, it is against the law and unfair to all that may be involved. The attorney was clearly discriminated against for being a female in this case and for being a parent. The attorney was frowned upon by her colleagues for withholding personal information that really had nothing to do with her being qualified for the job. The attorney could have argued that the company knew that she had a child (Walsh, 2013). Explicit gender bias favoring men and exhibiting traditional gender roles has been found in experimental and field’s studies in hiring, promotion, and career opportunities.
Women with more masculine roles in the work place were rated lower to men that had the same role in the company. Although many people see that the gender gap has lessened, there still is bias against women who are in both upper management positions and in compensations. Both men and women can be looked at differently when it comes to evaluating depending on how their actions violate the expectations of how they should act as a leader. I do agree with the attorney speaking with other colleagues about her situations to grasp their perception on what they thought about the situation (Nodler & Stockdale,
2012). When it comes to gossip in my profession, this type of behavior is not tolerated and looks bad on any department or organization. Although some of the information was true, the attorney should have received advice from human resource and the employee relations department. She was then denied her annual pay increase and then the company chose to terminate her soon after. The attorney at this point was terminated as a result of negative evaluations. The only positive evaluations came from the outside colleagues that the attorney spoke with. The negative evaluations came from those within her department. There was very bad treatment on the behalf of the partners, but the attorney at this time chose to go a different route with her situation. I favor against the plaintiff. Instead of documenting the incidence and also filling grievance through the proper chain of command, the attorney decided to speak with others who were not directly involved. This created a hostile work environment for the other employees that were not connected in the case (Walsh, 2013). I do not feel that she should have been the only employee that was terminated because the partner showed a lot of bias behaviors. I feel that there was not enough evidence that supported her case.
Nodler, J.T., & Stockdale, M.S. (2012). Workplace Gender Bias: Not Just Between Strangers North American Journal of Psychology, 14 (2), 281-291 Walsh, D. J. (2013). Employment Law For Human Resource Practice (4th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning