Disparate Treatment Claims Case Summary

The case study discussed the unfair treatment of a female attorney employed at a law firm. A disparate treatment claim came about due to the female attorney’s perception, that she was wrongfully terminated and discriminated against, by the partners at the firm. As the judge on this disparate treatment claim case, there are several occurrences that lean in support of the plaintiff.

According to the VonBergen (1991) academic journal, the Civil Right Acts was amended in 1991 due to an uprise in cases similar to this scenery. Changes were brought about which gave employees the right to file Family responsibility discrimination lawsuits (VonBergen, Mawer & Howard, 2008). The courts have ruled that employers who fails “to promote women with children while promoting women without children and men with children”, as discriminatory conduct (17). In the scenario, one could assume that the attorney worked well with the partners in the firm, until they learned that she had a child. A past stereotype was recalled and it referenced that women with children, have an inability to perform overtime. Another known stereotype of women with children is that they are unable to complete job tasks timely due to their need to take excessive time off.

If the female attorney’s allegations are truthful, then the partner has violated her protected class which is gender.

The partner basically wore his feelings towards her “on his sleeve” when he begin to make comments about women’s commitment levels, compared to men. The partner also made a comment regarding another attorney requesting to become partner in the firm after her return from maternity leave. It is unsure if that attorney was let go, however, “firing an employer for becoming pregnant is a discriminatory conduct” (VonBergen, Mawer & Howard,

2008).

The scenario did not provide enough information regarding the female attorney filing a complaint appropriately. However, she raised concerns with other partners in the firm which lead me to believe that she did. Consequently, the complaints led to attention being drawn to the office, from other attorneys and partners within the firm. If the attorney did not make a complaint to the appropriate department and complained as if it is to be rumored, the partner may well be able to counter with a defamation of character defense. This would be supported by the comments made of “embarrassment” and “caused a problem for” the office remarks. If this is deemed truthful, then it is inappropriate conduct and a corrective action should have been in place if the success of the business was affected. Withholding the attorney’s annual pay increase should not be part of the corrective plan.

According to the Saks and McCarthy (2006) peer reviewed article, “Research has also found that female applicants receive lower performance ratings than males” (Pg177).
Consequently, the attorney also appeared to receive low ratings due to there already existing perception of her performance by partners, in her direct office. It was stated that reviews were positive from partners in the other offices of the firm. The attorney’s flaws should have been addressed with her and she should have been given an opportunity to correct her performance, if the reviews were accurate. The female attorney should have been placed in probation for a period of time, and granted a change to make performance improvements. Probation may have been an appropriate disciplinary action. The female attorney was most likely wrongfully terminated. The probation policy may need to be explored in this case as well as the employee handbook with policy and procedures.

To conclude, there are several concerns in this case the require more investigation and attention. The performance action of the employee will need to be reviewed. If evidence provided is sufficient and efficient according to how the scenario describes the occurrences, as the judge in this case, I would have to decide in favor of the plaintiff.