Is The Pandemic Good Or Bad For Equal Pay?
The coronavirus pandemic threatens to slow progress in pay equity for female lawyers, but also provides a unique opportunity for law firms to effect change.
July 27, 2020 at 05:29 AM
5 minute read
Progress towards closing the gender pay gap in law firms could be yet another unforeseen casualty of the global coronavirus pandemic. With the suspension of gender pay gap reporting in 2020, the equal pay claim brought against Asda in the Supreme Court this month – the largest ever in the private sector – has shone a welcome spotlight back onto the issue of pay disparity.
It is already clear that across all sectors women are losing out as families try to juggle childcare and work. In the legal sector the consequences of that struggle on gender pay gaps may only be felt next year, as firms assess the performance and contribution of lawyers in determining promotions, pay and bonuses.
The UK government suspended gender pay gap reporting legislation this year, just a week before the reporting deadline. While many businesses, including law firms, will have welcomed this move given the myriad of matters they were dealing with in April, this brings with it the danger that law firms will let their efforts towards gender parity slide just as they need to reinforce them.
Last year The Times reviewed the gender pay gaps at the 10 largest law firms and found that they were worse than in several other male-dominated sectors. This year several magic circle firms voluntarily published their 2019 gender pay gap data, despite the suspension of reporting requirements. Whilst there were some improvements compared to 2018 figures, the mean gender gap, in general, remains higher than the national average.
Of course, a large gender pay gap does not automatically mean that female associates and partners are not receiving equal pay to their male peers. However, it does evidence what we already know; that City law firms have fewer women than men in higher paid senior associate roles and in partnership.
If firms are therefore committed to making a meaningful change to their gender pay gap when they come to report in 2021, it is abundantly clear that this can only be achieved through improving gender equity at senior levels of the firm. While the issues relevant to improving gender equity have not changed as a result of the pandemic, certain issues warrant renewed focus as a result of the particular challenges arising out of the period of lockdown and ongoing remote working, including:
- recognising and addressing structural issues which may have a greater impact on women and the value attributed to their role, including the impact of prioritising billing figures when making promotion and bonus decisions, rather than looking at other measurable contributions, including knowledge management, team building and individual support.
- where financial metrics will unquestionably continue to be a key factor in measuring performance, ensuring a sufficiently long look-back period to ensure that figures are not skewed by the challenging recent period (particularly where this may relate to child-care related issues).
- ensuring work and business development opportunities are distributed evenly, as with remote working there is a greater danger of siloed working; partners should be reminded to spread work and opportunities across the team.
- Being doubly mindful of unconscious bias: this includes well-meaning biases that might lead partners to pre-suppose that a lawyer with children at home might not be the right person to lead on a new case or transaction.
With the pandemic said to have the potential to set women's economic progress back half a century, the Asda case is a timely reminder, if we needed one, of the importance of tackling the issue of gender pay disparity.
And while the likelihood of a rise in equal pay claims brought by lawyers appears unlikely where firms are able to rely on non-discriminatory material factors (for example differentiating practice areas) as the basis for pay differential, sex discrimination cases remain a very real risk for firms who do not actively address the underlying reasons for gender disparity amongst senior lawyers.
In addition to recognising and addressing the challenges posed by the pandemic, firms should now take advantage of the unique opportunity to shift the gender dial following the legal sector's wholesale shift to remote working during the pandemic.
Where the most common reason cited for pay disparity in the legal profession is the traditionally inflexible nature of law firms in accommodating female lawyers' child-caring responsibilities, firms now have the chance to permanently change that status quo by cementing flexible ways of working post lock-down alongside reviewing their approaches to performance and remuneration structures.
Anna Birtwistle is a partner and Hannah Taylor an associate at Farrer & Co.
|Read More:
3 Jones Day Leaders Can Overrule Others in Pay Decisions, Gender Discrimination Plaintiffs Say
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 AllCan Labour's New Budget Steady the Ship? Big Moves On UK Tax Reform and Fiscal Stability
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Grants Special Counsel's Motion, Dismisses Criminal Case Against Trump Without Prejudice
- 2GEICO, Travelers to Pay NY $11.3M for Cybersecurity Breaches
- 3'Professional Misconduct': Maryland Supreme Court Disbars 86-Year-Old Attorney
- 4Capital Markets Partners Expect IPO Resurgence During Trump Administration
- 5Chief Assistant District Attorney and Litigator Shortlisted for Paulding County Judgeship
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