Warning: Breast-Feeding Is Dangerous (to Your Career)
A lawyer's schedule is unrelenting and difficult for nursing moms, and there's an attitude that productivity suffers due to breast pumping on the job.
November 13, 2018 at 11:02 AM
4 minute read
Add this to the list of possible reasons as to why women leave law practice: Breast-feeding.
Yup, you heard correctly. I admit I did not take this as a serious factor at first, but it seems women who breast-feed still face challenges and prejudices—so much so that they might be abandoning ship.
According to a recent survey by Aeroflow (a breast pump provider—what else?), 49 percent of the more than 770 women surveyed had concerns that breast-feeding at work could impact their career growth. Moreover, 47 percent of the breast-feeding working moms also said the need to pump has spurred them to consider a job or career change.
Wait, are women actually quitting their jobs to breast-feed in peace? Well, the correlation isn't quite that clear because “women are more likely to quit breastfeeding than quit their jobs entirely,” according to Bloomberg, which reported on the survey. That said, some women are bailing for reasons related to motherhood—and that contributes to the gender pay gap.
In fact, one study finds a “breastfeeding penalty” at play. “Women who breastfed for at least six months suffered more severe and prolonged earnings losses than mothers who breastfed for less time or not at all,” Bloomberg reported. And considering “that only about 40 percent of women have access to a private space, other than a bathroom, to pump,” there are plenty of employers who are not supportive of breast-feeding moms at all.
But is this relevant in the world of Big Law, which has made a big deal of providing lawyer-moms with fancy lactation rooms and overnight shipment of breast milk, not to mention generous parental leaves?
Most firms seem to have the right physical facilities and policies, but some aspects of the profession are not so accommodating.
Courthouses, for instance, pose problems because they often lack appropriate setups, reports Law.com's Angela Morris. ”Most of these courthouses were built at times it was just white males going to court,” Sarretta McDonough, president of the National Association of Women Lawyers, tells Law.com. “We've focused so much on the private sector—we haven't focused enough on public facilities.”
The bigger problem, arguably, is that a lawyer's schedule is unrelenting and difficult for nursing moms. As they well know, breast pumping, which can take anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour, requires a strict schedule that doesn't match the typical workday routine.
Moreover, there's also simple prejudice against breast-feeding moms. One Virginia-based lawyer with three kids told Bloomberg that her former employer accused her of lagged productivity when she started breast pumping, then laid her off.
But are these concerns resonating with female lawyers, even ones who've breast-fed their kids?
All the griping about having to choose between being a good mom who breast-feeds and a hardworking lawyer is “ridiculous,” says an Am Law 100 firm female partner with three kids, all of whom she's breast-fed. Women, she says, should “quit whining” and “do what you feel you need to do to deal with the eternal work-life struggle.”
This lawyer says that a woman with a new child has “an obligation to let the employer know she is the same devoted worker pre- and post-baby.” After having her kids, this lawyer actually made it clear that she was more than willing to travel. ”I was in it to win it,” she explains. “If someone said to me they wouldn't fly cross-country for a meeting because 'I have a baby,' I would question that person's commitment to their career, male or female.”
Her advice “is to stay present in your job while pumping as much as possible.” She adds, “Own it. I took conference calls while pumping and when someone said 'what's that noise?' I responded 'my breast pump.'”
So there you have it. What do you think? Is breast-feeding hurting your career?
Contact Vivia Chen at [email protected]. On Twitter: @lawcareerist.
|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
© 2024 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 AllAs Big Law Walks a Tightrope, Herbert Smith Freehills Refuses to Lose Its Footing
8 minute readHoly Grail: Can Changing Big Law Recruiting, Hiring and Training Lead to Greater Retention?
10 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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