Student Guest Blogger: Alex Crohn
We are joined by student guest blogger Alex Crohn. Alex is a member of the Harvard Law School class of 2009.
---
I was once told that the reason gay men and women have thrived so much in finance is because banks realized that gays were less likely to have families and would therefore be less distracted from their work. Now, I am all for the increased presence of gay individuals in fields that have traditionally been dominated by straight men, but somehow this fact did little to comfort me. Whether or not this story was actually the truth, it remained true that in the early days when gay men and women first started coming out in the workplace they were simply less likely to have children, and as a result, were able to devote more time to their work.
We live in a different time now and gays are increasingly seen not just as efficient workers, but as individuals with specific needs. Many law firms have LGBT affinity groups, attend LGBT career fairs, adopt non-discrimination policies, and provide leave to new parents who adopt. Yet disparities still exist, and these disparities show that law firms have failed to completely acknowledge the reality of gay families. In almost all law firms, more time is given for maternity leave than the leave given to parents who adopt. This, of course, ignores the fact that in some same-sex relationships, neither parent will qualify for maternity leave. Biological births present unique challenges to mothers, but adoption has its own share of hardships. Providing reduced leave for adoptions fails to acknowledge the fact that gay couples face significant challenges during the adoption process that are incredibly time consuming. Gay couples experience increased scrutiny from private adoption agencies and are prohibited from adopting children from certain foreign countries. Additionally, some law firms give monetary gifts to lawyers who get married. This of course ignores the fact that the vast majority of gay lawyers are legally prohibited from getting married and are ineligible for such a gift. A failure to acknowledge the impact this has on gay couples in committed relationships reveals a lack of sensitivity on the part of some law firms towards the needs of their gay employees.
The issues that gay lawyers face in major firms are not insurmountable obstacles and are clearly within the power of firms to address. Of course these issues are relatively minor when we are faced with the fact that 30 states provide no workplace protection on the basis of sexual orientation, 37 states provide no protection on the basis of gender identity/expression, and no federal laws exist whatsoever to protect the LBGT community from workplace discrimination. And of course there are many legal employers that provide no recognition of their gay employees. However, until employers that pride themselves on the inclusive nature of their legal practice provide full acknowledgment of the reality of gay families, gay employees will continue to be seen only as efficient workers, and not as individuals with specific needs.