Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Law Firm Partnership & Benefits ReportKickerFeaturesTopicsLaw Firm ManagementSectionsNewsLJN Newsletters

Family Responsibilities Discrimination in Law Firms

By Cara E. Greene and Christopher Willett
June 27, 2008
In her first years working as an associate in a New York City law firm, Jan Sigmon received professional evaluations identifying her work as 'terrific,' but her career took a quick turn after she announced she was pregnant. Rumors swirled that she planned to take advantage of the firm by remaining full-time while working shorter hours, and she was isolated from firm activities. After her return from maternity leave, her evaluation identified her as a 'problem.'

At another law firm, when management discovered that Dawn Gallina, an associate, had a small child, a managing partner spoke to her about how women lawyers have extra work demands that are difficult to balance with a family. After she complained about being treated differently, the firm told Gallina to decide whether she wanted to be a 'successful mommy or a successful lawyer.'

Joann Trezza worked for over ten years in the legal department at a multinational company, moving from staff attorney to senior staff attorney. Nevertheless, when a managing attorney position became available, the company did not consider her for the position because her supervisors assumed that, because she had a family, she would not want to travel. An executive at the company told her that he did not see how working mothers could be both good workers and good mothers.

Sigmon, Gallina, and Trezza found out that sex-based stereotypes still play a role in workplace decisions and they responded by filing lawsuits in what has become one of the fastest growing areas of employment discrimination law: Family Responsibilities Discrimination ('FRD'). See Sigmon v. Parker Chapin Flattau & Klimpl, 901 F. Supp. 667 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); Gallina v. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo, P.C., 123 F. App'x 558 (4th Cir. 2005); Trezza v. The Hartford, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20206 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 30, 1998).

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.