INTERVIEW - Sharing experiences of workplace bullying

Esperanza is kind enough to explain her experience with Bullying in the work place. Unfortunately this happens all over the world. We seem to always talk about the children and not often enough about the adults and especially women in the work place.

Sex Discrimination in Law Firms - Life in the firm still no picnic for women

Former Clayton Utz lawyer Bridgette Styles has filed a sexual harrasment claim against the top-flight firm.

It is depressing to read that more than 25 years since the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act, and when universities are pumping out more female graduates than ever before, allegations of sexual harassment are being made by a young lawyer, Bridgette Styles, against a large Sydney law firm.

Many of us who have worked in law firms would love to say we are surprised by the news but, sadly, actual and anecdotal evidence would suggest such behaviour remains a part of life in a firm for many women.

When I was working in a large law firm in the early 1990s, some partners would take all the male lawyers in their team to lunch, leaving the female solicitors (with the secretaries) sitting at their desks with a sandwich.

Advertisement: Story continues below

Pregnant with my first child, I didn't get an annual pay rise that was awarded to all my peers. When I whinged to a male colleague the same age, he said in all seriousness, ''Well, why would you? You're leaving to have a baby.''

In a deeply competitive, dog-eat-dog environment, where a colleague's desk could be cleared overnight, we were too scared to challenge demeaning and insulting inequities.

The mantra fed to all young lawyers, who in turn learnt to behave like victims of Stockholm syndrome, was that we should feel so very grateful for having earned a place in such a prestigious workplace. We knew intuitively that complaining about conditions could lead to sacking, and most women lawyers would no doubt agree they felt the more vulnerable gender.

For many practising in the 1990s, Marea Hickey's decision to prosecute her case against Hunt & Hunt, when her fellow partners denied her the right to return to work on a part-time basis after maternity leave, was a seminal moment, especially for female lawyers.

It would, however, be fair to say that many of us paused, took a breath, and hoped like hell that women lawyers would not then be marginalised and perceived as a litigious impediment in the workplace.

Thankfully, conditions have improved. While some of the change in attitude is attributable to legislative reforms that have forced law firms - like all businesses - to adjust their employment practices, many firms have taken the initiative to actively develop ''family-friendly'' policies. They appear to have had an epiphany, realising that training, and then losing, some of their brightest women is detrimental to the business model and ultimately to their reputation.

As recently as this year, however, I heard of a case where a young (recently engaged) woman making budget was being managed out of an underperforming practice group in a large firm. In terminating her employment, the male partner told her that losing her job would not be the end of the world because she would soon be married and at home having babies. No doubt her colleagues who survived the cut stayed silent, smugly congratulating themselves for being tougher, smarter and better employees, and thus perpetuating the means-of-survival myth.

It is not unusual for relationships to form in the workplace, especially when colleagues work long hours, side by side. Law firms have always been notorious hotbeds for brief - and long-term - partnerships of the biblical kind. Feisty Friday night drinks are commonplace and other firm social functions often end with more than a hint of debauchery.

In the wash-up from these events, the water cooler talk the next dusty morning still tends to focus on flirtatious, drunken behaviour by women lawyers, not the men, when we all know it takes two to tango. What seems to be a badge of honour for a man is still a woman lawyer scorned.

Speaking out against injustices in any workplace takes courage, and for a young woman such as Styles to take on the might of a law firm - which has an obligation to know better under the Law Society's rules for maintaining a valid practising certificate - is a gutsy call. Especially when she, and many others before her, must be profoundly aware that even a judicial win may amount to a pyrrhic victory.

source

COMMENTS

I hope this case will strike fear into the heart of every male in my industry - advertising. Like law, it's full of people who do know better, but still act as if their behaviour will never catch up with them. Go Bridgette.

Anonymous - June 09, 2011, 8:27AM

Congratulations to Ms Styles for fighting back and speaking up. It takes a lot of courage to stand up and even more courage to weather the storm of criticism and innuendo that will inevitably ensue.

What I can't understand is how ANYONE could be surprised about the ongoing mistreatment of females in large organisations. Male and female equality in most workplaces will continue to be a myth perpetrated by the powerful male establishment to placate those ambitious women who fail to understand their place in society - I mean, how dare we want the same treatment as our male counterparts? What are we thinking? I wish Ms Styles the very best for her future.

Keen observer | Qld - June 09, 2011, 8:23AM

This is all about a flawed culture, and a business model for legal firms that the rest of the business community considers arcane. The law firms have a culture of putting the ambitious (and often avaricious) together in a lump after recruitment and convincing them there is only one deeply competitive and low paid way - theirs. The Stockholm syndrome comment is a fascinating insight. But these are also bright young folk with unrivalled opportunity to make changes to their circumstances.
It is the business model that creates the pressure, and the culture that sustains it. Because of the prehistoric structures, the culture (including sexism) is changing at a slothful pace.But there's also a general issue of the entirely undeserved high regard the profession holds itself in, which is absurd.

SWRA - June 09, 2011, 8:16AM

Not originally being Australian is is rather entertaining to watch Australian males in postitions of power and as sporting 'role models' struggling to make it past the 19th century. Even when they have made good, they can't escape their origins. Australia - the last true bastion of male chauvinism!

StanGoodvibes | Sydney - June 09, 2011, 8:10AM

Well done Bridgette and Emma one bully at at time will change the culture. The only way to break the cycle of Stockholm syndrome is for some to challenge unethical behavior and that throws unhinges the bullies.

PeterCab | Canberra - June 09, 2011, 8:10AM

As an ordinary citizen of the world with the odd limb missing and other battle scars I somehow find the story about sharks attacking sharks enervating.

What better spectacle than to see exposed the legal profession for what it really is. May they all devour each other and leave the planet a better place.

justice-at-last | boondocks - June 09, 2011, 8:07AM

As a law student going through work experience training, I find articles (and situations!) like these incredibly disheartening.

I was told by my work place supervisor that in the legal world, I need to make a choice between being a "stay at home mother" or being a lawyer. Well, I already have three children, so I can't "unchose" motherhood.

However I have also worked incredibly hard over the last 15 years to obtain two degrees, whilst working part time and spending most of that time as a single mother. To be told I have to make a choice was shocking.

When I left recently, it was because I was told that they needed a full time employee and since I only wanted part time work, that would not be me.

What galled the most is that I do want full time work. I asked for part time work experience because I was combining study with family and work experience. Once I am done with the study (end of this month) it was always my intention to (return) to full time work.

When I said this to my supervisor, all I got was a dismissive "well, I can't see your family commitments changing anytime soon".

He doesn't really know me or my situation (other than that I took two days off when my youngest child had emergency surgery). He never asked what my intentions were. And this was not some big firm, rather, a small regional firm.

It hasn't put me off law, but has shone a spotlight on what kind of attitude awaits me in the workplace. Glad I'm warned!

Kelly | Home - June 09, 2011, 8:00AM

Don't poop in your own nest.

Cluey | Cloey - June 09, 2011, 7:59AM

I get what you're saying but I don't feel any sympathy for lawyers. So the male lawyers exploit the female lawyers and all lawyers exploit everyone else. I have a bit of trouble getting past that and onto the message about female discrimination in the workplace. If the story was about 'women in finance' or 'women in IT' then perhaps I'd give a damn.

jacorb effect | sydney - June 09, 2011, 7:44AM

This is indeed a sad state of affairs, but unfortunately it is demonstrative of the ever-present arrogance in the legal profession. As a lawyer, I have observed broadly arrogant behaviour (from both women and men) in the profession since my pre-admission days working in the industry and additionally, a healthy dose of misogyny and objectification thrown in the mix.

There are people who observe such behaviour in this profession and in the wider community who think "oh well, it will always be this way" and it is exactly this attitude which perpetuates the problem. I don't know about the veracity of Ms Styles claims and no doubt the full details will come out in the course of this hearing but there is no doubt that this is a serious problem for female lawyers, particularly in large firms.

Having said that, there are a lot of decent male lawyers out there who do not get caught up in this destructive and discriminatory culture and it is for these people to stand up for women (as well as women standing up for themselves) when they see that something wrong is happening. We've all heard the saying that "all it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing", but more people need to live by it. As you have rightly said, Emma, courage is key.

One final but minor observation from the photo caption - it says Ms Styles is suing the firm for sexual assault and defamation. I wasn't aware that one could bring a sexual assault action (whether civil or criminal) against a business. The only other observation is that Belinda Styles is a pretty awesome name.

Tiago | Sydney - June 09, 2011, 7:25AM

Beauty Discrimination?!! ....Attractive women who attach photo to CV 'less likely to be employed'

• Attractive men, however, more likely to get interview
• 
  

It's long been suspected that some employers are swayed by a pretty face in a job interview.

But being good-looking might be an impediment to getting to that stage in the first place.

Attractive women who attach a photo to their CV are less likely to get an interview than their plainer rivals or those who do not send in a picture, research reveals today.

'Jealous' women in personnel departments who screen which jobseekers should be invited in are to blame for attractive women not getting interviews, says a new report.

It blames young, single and ‘jealous’ women in personnel departments who screen which jobseekers should be invited in.

But in an example of the ‘double standards’ that the researchers said these staff employed, attractive men who attach a photograph are more likely to get an interview than plain ones.

Staff in personnel departments are overwhelmingly female, typically single and aged 29 on average, the researchers found.

Their report concludes:

• ‘The evidence points to female jealousy of attractive women in the workplace as a primary reason for their penalisation in recruitment.’
• In a warning to pretty job-seeking women, it adds: ‘Attractive females are singled out for punishment.’

A young man waits at a job interview. Attractive men who attach a photograph are more likely to get an interview than plain ones, says research

The research, published by The Royal Economic Society, involved sending more than 5,300 CVs for 2,650 job vacancies. For each job, two applications were sent. One contained a photograph of an attractive man or woman, or a plain-looking man or woman. The other CV was identical, but did not contain a photograph.

Nearly 20 per cent of attractive men got an interview.

• But only 12.8 per cent of attractive women fared as well.

Of plain men, 9.2 per cent got an interview, compared with 13.6 per cent of plain women. Men who did not attach a picture were asked for interview 13.7 per cent of the time, compared with 16.6 per cent of women.

Bradley Ruffle, from the Department of Economics at Ben-Gurion University in Israel, which carried out the study along with the Ariel University Centre in the West Bank, said it was an example of ‘beauty discrimination’.

For the best chance of getting an interview, a woman should send in a CV without a picture, he said.

He blamed ‘the high number of women in human resources staffing positions’. It is their job to look through a mountain of CVs and job applications to decide who should be asked for an interview, and who should not.

When they see an application from a pretty woman, researchers said, many of these staff feel extremely ‘jealous’ of their potential colleague and often reject her instantly.

To check this stereotype, researchers telephoned the companies who were recruiting to find out about the people who screened the candidates. They found that 96 per cent were female, the majority were between the ages of 23 and 34 and nearly 70 per cent were single.

The research was conducted in Israel because it is normal to attach a photograph in the corner of a CV there, unlike in Britain. Professor Cary Cooper, from the Lancaster University Management School, said women in human resources may be trying to help the ‘underdog’.

He said: ‘It could be that they unconsciously think that the less attractive woman is the underdog, and want to give her a chance. ‘They may think to themselves: “These attractive women stand a better chance of getting a job elsewhere. I’ll give the less attractive one an interview.”’

source

UK - Health Worker Bullied by NHS for asking colleagues to consider abortion's impact gets her job back

A health worker who faced the sack after giving an NHS colleague a booklet about the potential dangers of abortion has been allowed to return to work.

Margaret Forrester, 39, claimed to have been ‘bullied’ and ‘treated like a criminal’ for expressing her religious views, but said yesterday that she has now been offered a better job at the same NHS trust.

Miss Forrester, claims she was suspended in November last year after she handed the £4 pro-life booklet called Forsaken – published by a charity – to her colleague. It detailed the physical and psychological trauma experienced by five women from Taunton, Somerset, who terminated their pregnancies.

She said she offered it to a family planning worker during a private conversation because she felt the NHS did not give enough information about the potential risks of abortion.

The mental health worker, who has been employed by the NHS for six years, said there was no sign her colleague, with whom she had discussed abortion, was offended by the booklet or by their conversation.

'Treated like a criminal': Margaret Forrester says she has now been offered a better job by the NHS

But a few days later her manager told her she was being sent home on ‘special leave with full pay’. She was ordered not to see any patients and to stay away from all NHS sites while the trust investigated.

Later, she was told she had not been suspended and could return to work, but claimed she was not allowed to do her normal job. Instead she was put on other duties, which she found ‘bullying and offensive’, adding: ‘I felt physically sickened by their bullying.’

She was eventually signed off on sick leave and has not been back to the health centre since.

Miss Forrester, who worked at the Central and North West London Mental Health Trust, in Camden, attended an internal disciplinary hearing last month where she was accused of ‘distributing materials some people may find offensive’.

Last night a spokesman for the trust said Miss Forrester had been warned not to distribute the ‘offensive’ material or anything similar again, but confirmed she had been offered a new role within the trust.

Offensive? Margaret Forrester said she offered the booklet - Forsaken - to a family planning worker during a private conversation because she felt the NHS did not give enough information about the potential risks of abortion

Miss Forrester said: ‘My employers have not given me any warnings of any kind. They have offered me a new, better role with a wider scope. If at any point they do send me a warning, I will challenge it in court.

‘It was incredible that I was suspended in the first place, just because I expressed a personal opinion. I should be able to express my opinion privately without fear and act freely in good conscience. Today is a victory for freedom of speech. I want to thank all of those who have prayed for me and supported me.’

Andrea Minichiello Williams, a barrister who runs the Christian Legal Centre which supported Miss Forrester, said: ‘The level of intolerance in the public sphere, demonstrated increasingly in public sector employment, is deeply worrying. ‘We hope that today’s decision by the NHS will help to reverse the tide of intolerance. This is a victory for freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.’

source

LEGAL - 'Bullied' City lawyer Gillian Switalski seeking £19m settles for secret payout

Deal: former head of legal affairs at F&C Gill Switalski

A City lawyer who had claimed a record £19 million in compensation over workplace bullying has settled for an undisclosed multi-million-pound sum.

Gill Switalski, 54, who earned £140,000 a year at F&C Asset Management, had already won her claims for sexual discrimination, victimisation and constructive dismissal.

Ms Switalski was head of legal affairs at F&C which controls assets of more than £100 billion, and also ran her own property development company and a legal training website.

She alleged in her lawsuit that she had been harassed and victimised by her employers from late 2004, and unable to work from August 2006, when she took sick leave following an operation. The tribunal ruled in her favour in March 2008.

Ms Switalski, a mother of two, claimed during her legal battle that she had been left almost penniless because her ex-employers were deliberately delaying her payout to “grind her into the ground”.

She said she was in a “dire financial position” and her £3.7 million house in Virginia Water was at risk because F&C launched a string of appeals against the tribunal rulings.

F&C appealed against the original decision twice, first in May 2008 and again in July 2009. In both cases the ruling was in Ms Switalski's favour.
At one stage in proceedings she was seeking £19 million though this was later lowered to £12 million.

A remedy hearing, where a judge decides on the size of the payout, was due to take place this week.

F&C appealed against the decision on the grounds that Ms Switalski had successfully applied for another job while on sick leave, thus disqualifying claims that her treatment at F&C had put an end to her career.

A spokesman for F&C said: “The parties have resolved all issues between them on the basis that all claims are withdrawn and will make no further statement.”

source

March 2010 - Lawyer who fought sexists wins millions in secret payout

July 2009 - 'Lawyer banks on record damages as panel upholds her harassment claim' - Tribunal upholds earlier ruling that Gill Switalski suffered sex bias and harassment. She is claiming £12 million damages

August 2008 - 'Lawyer in £19 million bullying case wins latest round'

LEGAL NEWS - 2010

Harbottle & Lewis successfully represent Gill Switalski in ground breaking discrimination claim

On 18 July 2009, following a Review Hearing that took place last month, the Employment Tribunal announced its decision to uphold the decision of an earlier Employment Tribunal that Gillian Switalski had suffered sexual discrimination, victimisation and harassment whilst employed by City-based F&C Asset Management as the Head of Legal. This is the latest twist in this long running and ground breaking discrimination case which has already been the subject matter of contested appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal on two occasions as well as an appearance before the Court of Appeal. The case is now listed for a hearing to award compensation in early January 2010.

Employment law Partner Howard Hymanson, who is acting for Gill Switalski said: "I am delighted for my client that once again she has been vindicated in her claim against her former employer F&C Asset Management.

One should not underestimate the pressure that she and her family have had to endure in fighting to clear her name against highly resourced and belligerent adversary intent upon pursuing every possible legal avenue of appeal in order to avoid paying compensation for the damage it has caused to her health and her career.

Notwithstanding every attempt that has been made to destroy her credibility my client remains resolute and is greatly relieved that a newly constituted tribunal has rejected once again the application for a review of the judgments made in her favour by the original tribunal.

My client now hopes that this long running litigation may soon come to an end so that she may begin the process of looking forward with her life rather than having to re-live the discriminatory treatment she received at the hand of her employer."

For further information, please contact Howard Hymanson on 020 7667 5000.


View press coverage on the case:

The Times

The Guardian

Financial Times

Daily Express

source