There’s No “Mother’s Day” At Work
As I wrote a couple of weeks ago, we heard from many women who responded to The Thin Pink Line Survey that their biggest challenge is trying to balance work and family, particularly children. Regardless of the complexity of the issues and the deeply personal choices we have to make when children are involved, it is clear that the employers aren’t all that concerned about helping us to make it work.
While we can certainly debate the extent of systemic change that should take place in the workplace to support parents of both sexes, in the meantime, things are what they are. A 2007 study reported that women identified as mothers were 50% less likely to be hired than women who were not “outed” as moms. And moms are offered, on average, starting salaries $11,000 less than childless women. Mothers are seen as less competent, less committed and less promotable.
What’s more, there’s a thinpinkline component ─ fathers suffered no such “daddy penalty”. In fact, they were seen as more committed to work and offered higher salaries than those offered to childless men.
Pretty shocking, isn’t it – especially since even recruiters have moms? Yet, there’s another side to the story. Consider the following survey comment we received:
“I am about to be passed over for a trial at my law firm. The reason I was given was ‘I’m not sure that a trial is a good idea for someone in your condition.’ I am 7 months pregnant, have not missed any work except for occasional doctor’s appointment. I have not missed or delayed a single assignment and people have even remarked that I haven’t missed a beat energy wise. I am a model pregnant employee! I have no medical reason not to participate in this trial and I am furious that they may take another associate on a case that I worked up from the beginning.”
What’s she thinking?
- I deserve this opportunity. I worked on the case from the beginning.
- I need trial work to get the experience I need to move up.
- This opportunity will give me an opportunity to demonstrate my expertise.
- I’m being penalized because I’m pregnant.
- If they treat me this way before I even have the baby, what will it be like after he’s born?
But here’s the other side:
- She’s 7 months pregnant.
- She’s taken time off to visit the doctor before and now the visits will probably increase in frequency. We don’t have time for that with a trial coming up.
- She’s been very energetic but that was before. What if she isn’t able to keep up with the hours needed?
- What is she goes into premature labor? How will we get someone else up to speed?
- We have to do the right thing for the client.
What might she have done differently to put herself in a better position to get the assignment?
- Acknowledged that getting this trial assigned was not going to be a slam dunk – that she’d have to proactively negotiate to get it.
- Thought about the concerns the partner making the decision might have and come up with solutions. For example, she might have arranged for a qualified colleague who wants more experience in her practice area shadow her so that there will be coverage in the unlikely event of a premature birth. (Undoubtedly, that would necessitate another negotiation about how they will share the billing credit but that’s for another day.) She might have asked her doctor to write a note describing how healthy she is.
- Created an opportunity to broach the topic with the partner, making it clear that she wants the trial assignment, has considered the concerns she and the client may have and come up with suggested solutions.
She still may not get the trial but she surely would have done as much as possible.
What else can we learn from her situation? Whether you are still thinking about having a child, pregnant or already a mom, consider that:
- The less said about your private life, the better. Try to make your doctor’s appointments after hours or on weekends so you don’t have to leave the office. On the hopefully rare occasions when that is not possible, respect the office culture. It may be that you can simply state that you have an appointment without going into detail that it is with the gynecologist. Give advance notice whenever possible. Resist sharing that you are anxiously awaiting the test results. And keep the sonogram pictures for your family and friends.
- Your childless colleagues are not willing to work longer or harder because you need to attend soccer matches, PTA meetings or any other child related event.
- You need a Plan A, a Plan B and a Plan C for childcare. This is not your employer’s problem.
There is no doubt that combining motherhood and work is both daunting and exhausting. It requires lots of negotiation, every day in fact. But the bottom line is that your boss has legitimate concerns about how and when the work will get done. You’re paid to do your job, not to be a mom.
It is true that working moms get paid for working and not being moms, however, this article highlights classic fact patterns of family caregiver discrimination, which is illegal under Title VII and many state anti-discrimination laws.
This kind of discrimination occurs when employers hold and act upon stereotypical beliefs that working moms cannot be good mothers and good employees because their family responsibilities will trump their work duties. These beliefs can result adverse employment decisions—sometimes called the maternal wall or the mommy track—that limit the employment opportunities of working moms.
Adverse employment actions based on gender stereotypes, even if well intended violate the laws that prohibit gender discrimination. For example, an employer might deny a promotion on the good faith assumption that their working mom employee would not want to relocate to another city, even if it would mean a promotion. Another common example is the employer that delays a promotion to a working mom when they return from maternity leave because the new mom has to “prove herself” now that she has added family responsibilities. This rarely (if ever) happens to new dads.
Employment decisions based on stereotypes like this are illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and most state anti-discrimination laws. Unfortunately, however, this has occurred too frequently over the years. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court acknowledged in a 2003 decision that the “gender stereotype . . . that women’s family duties trump those of the workplace . . . has historically produced discrimination in the hiring and promotion of women.”
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a new Best Practices Guidance Paper on April 22, 2009, that encouraged employers to develop polices that describe the common stereotypes or biases about caregivers that may result in unlawful conduct. You can find this EEOC guidance paper at this link: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/4-22-09.html
Comment by Mark Walters — July 7, 2009 @ 11:18 am
@Mark – thank you for your very articulate comment. I only wish that the law could prevent the illegal employment decisions that happen every day!
Women who believe their rights under Title VII or state employment laws have been violated should certainly consult an attorney to review their legal options. It has been my experience, however, that too often such illegal behavior is very difficult to prove and it is a costly and emotionally wearing experience.
Comment by Carol Frohlinger — July 7, 2009 @ 4:19 pm