Are Women Getting Snookered By Those Latest Fertility Perks?
It seems half of the female lawyers I know are having babies through IVF or thinking about it.
February 18, 2020 at 05:58 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
For a change, I'm not the cynical one.
When Weil, Gotshal & Manges rolled out its assisted pregnancy benefits program, I thought it was sensible, even laudatory. The coverage includes up to three rounds of in vitro fertilization, egg freezing (with a year of free storage) and up to $25,000 allowance for each surrogacy pregnancy or adoption.
Of course, you can argue the program is designed to garner positive publicity and make the firm look cool and caring to those demanding millennial recruits. But as far as headline-grabbing benefits go, Weil's package is actually practical. It seems half of the female lawyers I know are having babies through IVF or thinking about it, so getting up to $45,000 worth of coverage (each procedure costs about $12,000 to $15,000) is a real perk.
Well, let no good deed go unpunished.
To my amazement, there was visceral hostility to Weil's generous offering. One of my colleagues called it "dystopian," while another accused Weil of "perpetuating a view that women in Big Law often hold—that it's best not to let your personal life, especially kids, hold you back."
So what's the deal? Are these reproductive benefits giving women peace of mind or lulling them into the foolish belief that it's perfectly normal to pop out a baby at age 59?
"These are excellent benefits to offer attorneys that give women a chance to have children when it might not otherwise be possible," says Shari Lusskin, a professor of psychiatry, obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive science at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. "Women defer conception for many reasons, not just because of work commitments."
I agree. From my observation, women aren't pushing pregnancy into their 40s or beyond for the sake of partnership. They're doing so for the most obvious reason: They haven't found a suitable mate to have babies with. (And please don't tell me they don't have husbands because they're too career-focused.) I might be out of it, but I don't think women are consciously sacrificing their fertility to appease the Big Law god.
And the view from lawyers?
"I'd like to have been a fly on the wall at Weil to hear how the cost-benefit equation for this program was discussed," says a male partner at a big firm in New York. "My first reaction was that this is great because it might ease the pressure some women face on whether to prioritize their law careers or start a family in their late 30s. But then the cynic in me thought that this might simply be a way for law firms to incentivize women to delay motherhood to the firm's advantage—so they can push hard in the years before coming up for partnership."
But who cares about law firms' motivations with these types of policies? Why look a gift horse in the mouth?
One female partner at a big firm in New York said that women used to be suspicious about flexible work arrangements too, but that it's now widely accepted and used by everyone. "There were arguments that flextime would marginalize women who take it, even though the policy has good intentions."
This partner says Weil should be neither slammed nor praised for its latest offering. As she sees it, the firm is offering what's now considered basic. "Weil is trying to sound progressive but is in fact behind for coverage," she says, noting, "many firms, like Ropes & Gray, provide unlimited fertility treatments." That we make such a fuss about Weil just shows "the glacial pace of law firm change," she adds.
But even the most lavish offerings of fertility treatments shouldn't change fundamental life decisions. "If you want kids, have kids," says this partner, who had her three children before she came up for partner. "It is a fool's errand to structure your family around certain milestones in your career. We make plans and God laughs. Partnership is uncertain. Fertility is uncertain. You can only plan so much. Women need to decide what matters to them and go after that goal with all of the ambition of a mediocre white man."
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 AllJustice on the Move: The Impact of 'Bristol-Myers Squibb' on FLSA Forum-Shopping
9 minute readRecord Live Event Attendance Prompts Need To Revisit Insurance Policies
4 minute readAdapting for Success: Strategic Insights for Law Firms in 2025 and Beyond
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Amended 'Grieving Families' Bill Seeks Update to NY's 1847 Wrongful Death Statute
- 2As Global Law Firm Mergers Keep Coming, Will There Ever Be a New Swiss Verein?
- 3Nervous System: Grace Hopper’s Neutral Corner
- 44th DCA: 'Trial Court Erred;' Big Law Partial Victory after $82M Flo Rida Verdict Appeal
- 5Dispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
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