Can Stay-at-Home Moms Ever Get Back on Track?
Let's be blunt: You are better off getting axed from your job than leaving it by choice—if that choice is quitting for the sake of the children.
March 06, 2018 at 03:57 PM
4 minute read
If you're thinking of dropping out of your fancy law job to stay home with the kiddies, I have one word of advice for you: Don't. Unless you are absolutely certain that you never want a future in Big Law or some other similarly competitive position again, don't even think about it.
That's essentially the finding of a new study by Kate Weisshaar, an assistant professor at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In a recent post in the Harvard Business Review blog, Weisshaar writes that employers look askance at stay-at-home moms and dads who try to re-enter the workforce: ”Put simply, stay-at-home parents were about half as likely to get a callback as unemployed parents and only one-third as likely as employed parents.”
Let's be blunt: You are better off getting axed from your job than leaving it by choice—if that choice is quitting for the sake of the children.
In her research, Weisshaar sent out 3,374 resumes for an assortment of high-skill jobs: accountant, finance analyst, software engineer, HR manager and marketing director. Though the fictitious applicants all had the same level of experiences and skills, there were sharp difference in the callback rates. Reports HBR:
The results show just how heavily parents reentering the workforce are penalized for their career gap: 15.3 percent of the employed mothers, 9.7 percent of the unemployed mothers, and 4.9 percent of the stay-at-home mothers received a callback.
The results were similar for fathers. While 14.6 percent of the employed fathers and 8.8 percent of unemployed fathers received a callback, only 5.4 percent of stay-at-home fathers did.
So how does this study affect lawyers? “I would guess the penalties would be similar or even larger in law because it's so competitive to get into these big firms in the first place,” Weisshaar says. “Opting out is seen as signaling that you're less committed to the job.”
What's more, she says, that perception is likely magnified in a high-pressured profession like law: “These jobs have expectations of long hours and total dedication, so employers get concerned if someone is showing signs of being less committed.”
Those types of stigmas and prejudices “ring true,” says Caren Ulrich Stacy, the CEO of Diversity Lab, which promotes women and diversity in the law: “In nearly 20 years as the head of talent for large law firms, I was never able to get a woman lawyer with a significant gap in her resume an interview.”
But Stacy says her organization's on-ramp fellowship program, which helps women who've been out of the workforce get back to Big Law, is gaining traction. Stacy says that 35 firms and in-house departments have hired 65 women returning to the profession through the on-ramp program. That said, the competition is stiff. “In four years, we've received more than 400 applications,” Stacy says.
Weisshaar isn't convinced that these programs aimed at helping women get back into the game is making much of a dent. “I do think they are more of a Band-Aid than a solution.”
Her advice is not to drop out completely. “I like the idea of ramping up or down, but not off,” she says. “If possible, work part time or flex time so that you can keep the connection.” She adds that it's incumbent on the workplace to make those options viable. “People don't go into a job thinking that they'll be a stay-at-home mom in five years,” she explains. “The key is to allow more flexibility and now stigmatize part-time jobs.”
But what if you've already quit your job and spent the last eight years chasing after the kids? Are you forever cast as Suzy Homemaker?
Weisshaar suggests fudging the truth a bit. “Don't say explicitly what's been happening in your life on your resume,” she advises. “Just say I've been out of the labor force and now want to return.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow a Paul Weiss Associate’s Career Took Off With Help From a Social Mobility Alliance
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DC Judge Chutkan Allows Jenner's $8M Unpaid Legal Fees Lawsuit to Proceed Against Sierra Leone
- 2Internal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, so Why Were US Numbers Flat?
- 3In Resolved Lawsuit, Jim Walden Alleged 'Retaliatory' Silencing by X of His Personal Social Media Account
- 4Government Attorneys Face Reassignment, Rescinded Job Offers in First Days of Trump Administration
- 5Disney Legal Chief Sees Pay Surge 36%
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250