Biglaw-- is this even legal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Assume a white guy doesn't get a plum assignment on, say, a big WalMart case that he is well suited for because it is staffed to satisfy a client's demand for diversity, and the white guy's bonus is lower, or he doesn't make partner as a result. He sues for race or sex discrimination. What's the law firm's defense? I don't believe diversity for diversity's sake has been recognized as a Title VII defense. I'm sure the law firm can come up with other reasons for the decision (as if often the case in race or sex discrimination cases whe there is more than one qualified person for a job), but if the real reason was to satisfy the client's preference, what is the firm's legal defense?

He's not in a protected class, so he can't bring discrimination claim. Part of his prima facie case has to be that he is in a protected class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Assume a white guy doesn't get a plum assignment on, say, a big WalMart case that he is well suited for because it is staffed to satisfy a client's demand for diversity, and the white guy's bonus is lower, or he doesn't make partner as a result. He sues for race or sex discrimination. What's the law firm's defense? I don't believe diversity for diversity's sake has been recognized as a Title VII defense. I'm sure the law firm can come up with other reasons for the decision (as if often the case in race or sex discrimination cases whe there is more than one qualified person for a job), but if the real reason was to satisfy the client's preference, what is the firm's legal defense?

He's not in a protected class, so he can't bring discrimination claim. Part of his prima facie case has to be that he is in a protected class.

Also I'm not even sure a woman or minority could have success with a suit like that. The client can pretty much hire whoever they want.

[Anonymous]

I'm a general counsel. I hire law firms and when I was brought into this position, I saw a very strange this happen over and over again during my 20 years of working in-house. I worked with fantastic women and people of color who were talented, etc., but were slowly pushed off our matters or let go (during the brutal recession) and replaced with less competent white male attorneys, particularly at the junior partner level. We've had to end relationships because the partners the firms wanted us to use were basically empty suits. All of the work was being done by women or people of color.

A retired judge wrote about this phenomenon. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/female-lawyers-women-judges.html?smid=fb-share

I don't work with firms that do this and I make it clear that when staffing changes occur, I get veto power. When associates leave, I ask why and oftentimes have members of my staff verify (often offering to provide a personal letter of support, people suddenly are more open about how awful they were treated). We actually hired some of these people and they are thriving in our organization despite being told that they were incompetent by their firms. I do this because the legal industry doesn't just not care about diversity -- it hates it and resents even having to be held accountable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a general counsel. I hire law firms and when I was brought into this position, I saw a very strange this happen over and over again during my 20 years of working in-house. I worked with fantastic women and people of color who were talented, etc., but were slowly pushed off our matters or let go (during the brutal recession) and replaced with less competent white male attorneys, particularly at the junior partner level. We've had to end relationships because the partners the firms wanted us to use were basically empty suits. All of the work was being done by women or people of color.

A retired judge wrote about this phenomenon. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/female-lawyers-women-judges.html?smid=fb-share

I don't work with firms that do this and I make it clear that when staffing changes occur, I get veto power. When associates leave, I ask why and oftentimes have members of my staff verify (often offering to provide a personal letter of support, people suddenly are more open about how awful they were treated). We actually hired some of these people and they are thriving in our organization despite being told that they were incompetent by their firms. I do this because the legal industry doesn't just not care about diversity -- it hates it and resents even having to be held accountable.

+ 1,0000000

Whoever said earlier that women have a seat at the table is dead wrong. Maybe here or there but POC and women are still very much second class citizens in law firms and I can bet if you talk to any white female partner she can tell you stories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Assume a white guy doesn't get a plum assignment on, say, a big WalMart case that he is well suited for because it is staffed to satisfy a client's demand for diversity, and the white guy's bonus is lower, or he doesn't make partner as a result. He sues for race or sex discrimination. What's the law firm's defense? I don't believe diversity for diversity's sake has been recognized as a Title VII defense. I'm sure the law firm can come up with other reasons for the decision (as if often the case in race or sex discrimination cases whe there is more than one qualified person for a job), but if the real reason was to satisfy the client's preference, what is the firm's legal defense?

He's not in a protected class, so he can't bring discrimination claim. Part of his prima facie case has to be that he is in a protected class.

Oh dear. Of course whites and men are protected under Title VII if they are discriminated against based on their race or sex. Where did you ever get this idea?

[Anonymous]

I worked for a company who hired a disabled vet just so they could check the box when submitting Gov't bids. Can't say for sure, but we did start winning more bids after he became employed there.

And if you want to know how exactly the company went about hiring a disabled vet specifically? It went something like, "hey, Matt, your brother is the in Marines, right? Does he have any disabled friends looking for work?" Others applied, but they ended up "not being a good fit" until the correct disabled vet was found.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Assume a white guy doesn't get a plum assignment on, say, a big WalMart case that he is well suited for because it is staffed to satisfy a client's demand for diversity, and the white guy's bonus is lower, or he doesn't make partner as a result. He sues for race or sex discrimination. What's the law firm's defense? I don't believe diversity for diversity's sake has been recognized as a Title VII defense. I'm sure the law firm can come up with other reasons for the decision (as if often the case in race or sex discrimination cases whe there is more than one qualified person for a job), but if the real reason was to satisfy the client's preference, what is the firm's legal defense?

There were probably 20 lawyers who were capable of working on that case who didn't get chosen. And there were probably a bunch of white men on the case. So he has to show that he was discriminated against because of his sex, when a bunch of white guys are on the case. Can't prove that they are discriminating against white men, only that they didn't pick this one guy. And he's almost certainly not the most qualified, or he would have been on the case, and some slightly less qualified person would have been booted off. So, they just point to all the other people who were chosen, who were also well-suited to work on the case, and say they just can't put everyone on every case. He'd probably also have to show that he didn't get any good assignments, not just one particular assignment that he wanted, and that that's the reason he didn't get a bonus. And he doesn't make partner because of one case? Good luck proving that.

Or they do what has been done to non-white men for decades and say "he wasn't a good fit," or something vague.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Assume a white guy doesn't get a plum assignment on, say, a big WalMart case that he is well suited for because it is staffed to satisfy a client's demand for diversity, and the white guy's bonus is lower, or he doesn't make partner as a result. He sues for race or sex discrimination. What's the law firm's defense? I don't believe diversity for diversity's sake has been recognized as a Title VII defense. I'm sure the law firm can come up with other reasons for the decision (as if often the case in race or sex discrimination cases whe there is more than one qualified person for a job), but if the real reason was to satisfy the client's preference, what is the firm's legal defense?

He's not in a protected class, so he can't bring discrimination claim. Part of his prima facie case has to be that he is in a protected class.

Also I'm not even sure a woman or minority could have success with a suit like that. The client can pretty much hire whoever they want.

Yup. Walmart says they want a diverse legal team because they find that they get better results that way. Law firm says, we put together a diverse legal team. It included white men, as well as women and POC. Just happens that this one white dude didn't get the assignment he wanted? Boo hoo for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is OP again. I appreciate the thoughtful responses. Assume a white guy doesn't get a plum assignment on, say, a big WalMart case that he is well suited for because it is staffed to satisfy a client's demand for diversity, and the white guy's bonus is lower, or he doesn't make partner as a result. He sues for race or sex discrimination. What's the law firm's defense? I don't believe diversity for diversity's sake has been recognized as a Title VII defense. I'm sure the law firm can come up with other reasons for the decision (as if often the case in race or sex discrimination cases whe there is more than one qualified person for a job), but if the real reason was to satisfy the client's preference, what is the firm's legal defense?

He's not in a protected class, so he can't bring discrimination claim. Part of his prima facie case has to be that he is in a protected class.

Oh dear. Of course whites and men are protected under Title VII if they are discriminated against based on their race or sex. Where did you ever get this idea?

+1, the protected class is race or gender, not brown or female. Think class (type) of discrimination, not class (type) of person.

But 14:34 does a great job explaining why this would fail, in practical terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a general counsel. I hire law firms and when I was brought into this position, I saw a very strange this happen over and over again during my 20 years of working in-house. I worked with fantastic women and people of color who were talented, etc., but were slowly pushed off our matters or let go (during the brutal recession) and replaced with less competent white male attorneys, particularly at the junior partner level. We've had to end relationships because the partners the firms wanted us to use were basically empty suits. All of the work was being done by women or people of color.

A retired judge wrote about this phenomenon. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/female-lawyers-women-judges.html?smid=fb-share

I don't work with firms that do this and I make it clear that when staffing changes occur, I get veto power. When associates leave, I ask why and oftentimes have members of my staff verify (often offering to provide a personal letter of support, people suddenly are more open about how awful they were treated). We actually hired some of these people and they are thriving in our organization despite being told that they were incompetent by their firms. I do this because the legal industry doesn't just not care about diversity -- it hates it and resents even having to be held accountable.

That's laughable to anyone who has ever actually worked for an extended period of time in Big Law. You are a disgruntled minority who was rightfully shitcanned by his/her Big Law firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a general counsel. I hire law firms and when I was brought into this position, I saw a very strange this happen over and over again during my 20 years of working in-house. I worked with fantastic women and people of color who were talented, etc., but were slowly pushed off our matters or let go (during the brutal recession) and replaced with less competent white male attorneys, particularly at the junior partner level. We've had to end relationships because the partners the firms wanted us to use were basically empty suits. All of the work was being done by women or people of color.

A retired judge wrote about this phenomenon. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/opinion/female-lawyers-women-judges.html?smid=fb-share

I don't work with firms that do this and I make it clear that when staffing changes occur, I get veto power. When associates leave, I ask why and oftentimes have members of my staff verify (often offering to provide a personal letter of support, people suddenly are more open about how awful they were treated). We actually hired some of these people and they are thriving in our organization despite being told that they were incompetent by their firms. I do this because the legal industry doesn't just not care about diversity -- it hates it and resents even having to be held accountable.

That's laughable to anyone who has ever actually worked for an extended period of time in Big Law. You are a disgruntled minority who was rightfully shitcanned by his/her Big Law firm.

Angry white guy is here. Hey, bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a big law client ability trumps diversity. We too have to deal with diversity challenges but when you are paying absurd hourly rates you expect the best.

You can have the best and still have diversity. Surely you aren't saying that having the best means that you have an all white team?

Sometimes the best teams aren't diverse. Soldiers, engineers, and to a certain extent, police officers tend not to be very diverse. The team will be weaker if you force diversity in certain jobs. They typically lower standards when they push diversity, so the outcome isn't really that surprising.

Maybe one day people will talk about REAL DIVERSITY, which has more to do with your way of thinking that is shaped by your experiences, and not your skin color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a big law client ability trumps diversity. We too have to deal with diversity challenges but when you are paying absurd hourly rates you expect the best.

You can have the best and still have diversity. Surely you aren't saying that having the best means that you have an all white team?

Sometimes the best teams aren't diverse. Soldiers, engineers, and to a certain extent, police officers tend not to be very diverse. The team will be weaker if you force diversity in certain jobs. They typically lower standards when they push diversity, so the outcome isn't really that surprising.

Maybe one day people will talk about REAL DIVERSITY, which has more to do with your way of thinking that is shaped by your experiences, and not your skin color.

Are you really using the police as a positive example? Yikes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a big law client ability trumps diversity. We too have to deal with diversity challenges but when you are paying absurd hourly rates you expect the best.

You can have the best and still have diversity. Surely you aren't saying that having the best means that you have an all white team?

Sometimes the best teams aren't diverse. Soldiers, engineers, and to a certain extent, police officers tend not to be very diverse. The team will be weaker if you force diversity in certain jobs. They typically lower standards when they push diversity, so the outcome isn't really that surprising.

Maybe one day people will talk about REAL DIVERSITY, which has more to do with your way of thinking that is shaped by your experiences, and not your skin color.

Are you really using the police as a positive example? Yikes

Not everyone lives in your little bubble.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a big law client ability trumps diversity. We too have to deal with diversity challenges but when you are paying absurd hourly rates you expect the best.

You can have the best and still have diversity. Surely you aren't saying that having the best means that you have an all white team?

It means that it doesn't matter what color it is as long as it's the cream of the crop. Not sure what is so difficult to understand about that.

So often the definition of the "cream of the crop" at law firms ends up being the white men. Just by happenstance, it seems.