1 00:00:00,560 --> 00:00:05,360 Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Grasso from Bloomberg Radio. 2 00:00:06,240 --> 00:00:09,000 Speaker 1: There is a clash between religious rights and gay rights. 3 00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:12,440 Speaker 1: In a case before the Supreme Court, a Catholic charity's 4 00:00:12,480 --> 00:00:15,920 Speaker 1: refusal to work with same sex couples when placing foster 5 00:00:16,040 --> 00:00:20,920 Speaker 1: children came up against Philadelphia's enforcement of anti discrimination requirements 6 00:00:21,000 --> 00:00:24,360 Speaker 1: in its contracts with the private agencies that screen potential 7 00:00:24,440 --> 00:00:29,360 Speaker 1: foster families. Justice Samuel Alito was skeptical about the city's policy. 8 00:00:29,920 --> 00:00:34,520 Speaker 1: It's not about ensuring that same sex couples in Philadelphia 9 00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:38,560 Speaker 1: have the opportunity to be foster parents. It's the fact 10 00:00:38,560 --> 00:00:42,320 Speaker 1: that the city can't stand the message that Catholic social 11 00:00:42,360 --> 00:00:47,120 Speaker 1: services and the archdioces are sending by continuing to adhere 12 00:00:47,640 --> 00:00:52,360 Speaker 1: to the old fashioned view about marriage. Justice Sonia Sotomayor 13 00:00:52,479 --> 00:00:56,960 Speaker 1: expressed concerns about other forms of discrimination. What is dangerous 14 00:00:57,040 --> 00:01:00,520 Speaker 1: is the idea that a contractor with a religious belief 15 00:01:01,400 --> 00:01:07,360 Speaker 1: could come in and say, exclude other religions from being families, 16 00:01:08,040 --> 00:01:13,959 Speaker 1: certifying families, exclude someone with a disability. Um, how do 17 00:01:14,040 --> 00:01:18,840 Speaker 1: we avoid that or exclude interracial couples? Joining me? Is 18 00:01:18,920 --> 00:01:22,800 Speaker 1: Steve Sanders, a professor at Indiana University's Mars School of Law. 19 00:01:23,240 --> 00:01:25,080 Speaker 1: Steve tell us about the issue at the heart of 20 00:01:25,120 --> 00:01:28,800 Speaker 1: the case. So, the City of Philadelphia, like many cities 21 00:01:28,800 --> 00:01:33,320 Speaker 1: and government entities, works with private organizations to carry out 22 00:01:33,319 --> 00:01:36,200 Speaker 1: certain kinds of social services. In this case, the City 23 00:01:36,200 --> 00:01:41,080 Speaker 1: of Philadelphia has a working relationship with Catholic Social Services, 24 00:01:41,160 --> 00:01:44,919 Speaker 1: an agency affiliated with the Catholic Church. This agency helps 25 00:01:44,959 --> 00:01:48,800 Speaker 1: to screen potential parents to serve as foster parents, and 26 00:01:48,840 --> 00:01:52,640 Speaker 1: then to place children in foster homes, children who are 27 00:01:52,640 --> 00:01:55,680 Speaker 1: in the city's custody because their parents have abandoned them, 28 00:01:55,680 --> 00:01:58,760 Speaker 1: were they've been taken away from their parents. Well, because 29 00:01:58,800 --> 00:02:02,960 Speaker 1: this is a Catholic organization, they say, same sex marriage 30 00:02:03,280 --> 00:02:07,840 Speaker 1: is against our principles, and they say that having to 31 00:02:07,920 --> 00:02:12,239 Speaker 1: certify the suitability of a same sex couple, married or 32 00:02:12,320 --> 00:02:17,160 Speaker 1: unmarried for a foster child placement would violate their religious principles, 33 00:02:17,280 --> 00:02:20,760 Speaker 1: their free exercise of religion. In the City of Philadelphia 34 00:02:20,919 --> 00:02:24,919 Speaker 1: has a nondiscrimination policy. It basically says, you can't do 35 00:02:25,000 --> 00:02:28,160 Speaker 1: business with us in this capacity if you're going to 36 00:02:28,240 --> 00:02:33,200 Speaker 1: discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. The Catholic Social 37 00:02:33,200 --> 00:02:37,920 Speaker 1: Services agency says, hey, that violates our religious rights. Under 38 00:02:37,960 --> 00:02:42,080 Speaker 1: the First Amendment, you are discriminating against us because of 39 00:02:42,080 --> 00:02:46,120 Speaker 1: our religious beliefs and our religious practices. The First Amendment 40 00:02:46,160 --> 00:02:50,320 Speaker 1: doesn't allow that. So then does this case harken back 41 00:02:50,400 --> 00:02:54,920 Speaker 1: to Masterpiece Cake Shop, where a Colorado baker refused to 42 00:02:54,919 --> 00:02:57,600 Speaker 1: make a cake for the wedding of a same sex couple. 43 00:02:58,080 --> 00:03:00,560 Speaker 1: It is, in many ways not quite a replay a 44 00:03:00,639 --> 00:03:03,480 Speaker 1: Masterpiece case Shop, but it certainly sets up the same tension. 45 00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:06,239 Speaker 1: That's right, you have a city or a state policy. 46 00:03:06,280 --> 00:03:09,200 Speaker 1: In Masterpiece, it was a Colorado state law. This is 47 00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:12,399 Speaker 1: a policy of the city of Philadelphia that is intended 48 00:03:12,440 --> 00:03:16,160 Speaker 1: to protect gays and lesbians against discrimination. In that case, 49 00:03:16,200 --> 00:03:18,280 Speaker 1: you had a baker. In this case, you have a 50 00:03:18,440 --> 00:03:23,040 Speaker 1: nonprofit organization that says, hey, we have entitlements under the 51 00:03:23,120 --> 00:03:28,480 Speaker 1: First Amendment, and the Constitution's First Amendment trump's ordinary city 52 00:03:28,560 --> 00:03:32,400 Speaker 1: or state policies. There are some differences. In Masterpiece, the 53 00:03:32,480 --> 00:03:37,000 Speaker 1: baker put forward a theory that was really centrally based 54 00:03:37,080 --> 00:03:41,560 Speaker 1: on First Amendment free speech. He said, hey, my cakes, 55 00:03:41,600 --> 00:03:44,520 Speaker 1: when I decorate them and provide them, are a form 56 00:03:44,600 --> 00:03:47,560 Speaker 1: of speech. Their a form of expression. They represent my 57 00:03:47,800 --> 00:03:50,920 Speaker 1: endorsement of the wedding or the couple and the government 58 00:03:50,960 --> 00:03:54,800 Speaker 1: can't compel me to engage in that kind of speech 59 00:03:55,200 --> 00:03:59,080 Speaker 1: and expression or a couple I disapprove of. This case 60 00:03:59,400 --> 00:04:03,520 Speaker 1: is more clearly focused on the First Amendments, religion clauses, 61 00:04:03,640 --> 00:04:07,240 Speaker 1: and so Catholic Social Services really isn't making a speech claim. 62 00:04:07,400 --> 00:04:11,280 Speaker 1: They are basically saying, this is discrimination against us, This 63 00:04:11,480 --> 00:04:16,640 Speaker 1: is government mistreatment of us based on our religious beliefs. 64 00:04:16,680 --> 00:04:21,080 Speaker 1: Some of the conservative justices seemed hostile to Philadelphia's argument. 65 00:04:21,480 --> 00:04:24,680 Speaker 1: For example, Justice Brett Kavanagh said the city was looking 66 00:04:24,720 --> 00:04:26,919 Speaker 1: for a fight. I think there were a number of 67 00:04:26,960 --> 00:04:30,080 Speaker 1: points that some of the conservative justices pointed out. One 68 00:04:30,720 --> 00:04:33,880 Speaker 1: they pointed out that no same sex couple has actually 69 00:04:33,920 --> 00:04:37,719 Speaker 1: ever been denied the opportunity to serve as foster parents. 70 00:04:37,760 --> 00:04:40,280 Speaker 1: In other words, some of the conservative justices were trying 71 00:04:40,279 --> 00:04:44,160 Speaker 1: to say, this policy seems to be a solution in 72 00:04:44,200 --> 00:04:47,239 Speaker 1: search of a problem, and so why are you going 73 00:04:47,320 --> 00:04:51,960 Speaker 1: to essentially punish this Catholic organization which is trying to 74 00:04:52,000 --> 00:04:54,960 Speaker 1: do good work and trying to uphold its ministry when 75 00:04:54,960 --> 00:04:58,240 Speaker 1: there really isn't any problem to be addressed. And then 76 00:04:58,240 --> 00:05:01,200 Speaker 1: there is also the more egal point that some of 77 00:05:01,240 --> 00:05:04,760 Speaker 1: the conservative justices were trying to grapple with, and that 78 00:05:04,960 --> 00:05:08,679 Speaker 1: is whether the city is applying a policy in an 79 00:05:08,720 --> 00:05:11,960 Speaker 1: even handed way. In other words, the lawyer for the 80 00:05:12,000 --> 00:05:15,200 Speaker 1: Catholic Social Services Agency and some of the conservative justices 81 00:05:15,240 --> 00:05:19,840 Speaker 1: we're saying, hey, the city makes exemptions from its non 82 00:05:19,920 --> 00:05:23,960 Speaker 1: discrimination or from its other policies in other areas, it 83 00:05:24,000 --> 00:05:27,719 Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily apply all of its policies. And if that 84 00:05:27,880 --> 00:05:31,120 Speaker 1: is the case, then that raises the stakes. Normally, under 85 00:05:31,120 --> 00:05:34,720 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court's current law, as long as a policy 86 00:05:34,800 --> 00:05:38,839 Speaker 1: is applied even handedly, an organization or a person generally 87 00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:41,640 Speaker 1: is not able to challenge that policy based on the 88 00:05:41,680 --> 00:05:44,880 Speaker 1: burdened places on their religious beliefs. But if there's evidence 89 00:05:44,920 --> 00:05:48,080 Speaker 1: that a city or a government entity is not applying 90 00:05:48,120 --> 00:05:52,560 Speaker 1: a policy in a uniform, even handed way, that rather, well, 91 00:05:52,600 --> 00:05:55,080 Speaker 1: we're going to hold you to one strict standard, that 92 00:05:55,200 --> 00:05:58,400 Speaker 1: not hold everybody to the same kind of standard. Then 93 00:05:58,839 --> 00:06:02,760 Speaker 1: it raises the positively this is sort of targeted discrimination 94 00:06:02,880 --> 00:06:08,479 Speaker 1: against a particular religious group or religious belief So, now 95 00:06:08,640 --> 00:06:12,400 Speaker 1: did you get any feel from her questions as to 96 00:06:12,440 --> 00:06:17,160 Speaker 1: how the newest justice was looking at this case any sickness? 97 00:06:18,480 --> 00:06:21,680 Speaker 1: Justice Baron asked good questions, you know, there there used 98 00:06:21,680 --> 00:06:24,719 Speaker 1: to be a sort of tradition that new justices didn't 99 00:06:24,720 --> 00:06:29,479 Speaker 1: say much or weren't particularly bold and oral argument. But 100 00:06:29,560 --> 00:06:32,080 Speaker 1: in this COVID time, when the Supreme Court is still 101 00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:37,240 Speaker 1: doing arguments virtually rather than in person, sort of a 102 00:06:37,240 --> 00:06:39,880 Speaker 1: new way of doing things where the Chief Justice basically 103 00:06:39,920 --> 00:06:44,040 Speaker 1: calls on each justice and order of seniority, they asked 104 00:06:44,040 --> 00:06:46,440 Speaker 1: their questions, and then the Chief Justice moves on to 105 00:06:46,520 --> 00:06:49,400 Speaker 1: the next justice, and so that sort of suggests that 106 00:06:49,520 --> 00:06:53,200 Speaker 1: each justice gets equal time. And so Justice Barrett certainly 107 00:06:53,279 --> 00:06:55,680 Speaker 1: jumped right in. She was the last justice called on 108 00:06:55,960 --> 00:06:59,159 Speaker 1: for you know, each set of questions, but she asked 109 00:06:59,160 --> 00:07:04,800 Speaker 1: good questions. I wouldn't say that she betrayed a sort 110 00:07:04,839 --> 00:07:07,560 Speaker 1: of an agenda or a bias one way or the other. 111 00:07:08,240 --> 00:07:12,400 Speaker 1: Um in these religion cases, especially the cases involving religion 112 00:07:12,520 --> 00:07:16,840 Speaker 1: versus gay rights, it's it's typically more Justice Alito, who 113 00:07:17,080 --> 00:07:20,800 Speaker 1: frankly is the person who is more skeptical with claims 114 00:07:20,840 --> 00:07:23,640 Speaker 1: about gay rights and seems to be a bit more 115 00:07:24,080 --> 00:07:29,120 Speaker 1: partisan to be, frank uh in in defense of religious 116 00:07:29,160 --> 00:07:33,440 Speaker 1: interests and eager to see sort of discrimination or even 117 00:07:33,480 --> 00:07:38,400 Speaker 1: persecution against religion when he thinks it's wrongful. But Justice 118 00:07:38,440 --> 00:07:42,520 Speaker 1: Barrett asked good questions of both sides, and I wouldn't 119 00:07:42,520 --> 00:07:47,960 Speaker 1: say she betrayed necessarily a prediction either way of how 120 00:07:47,960 --> 00:07:50,200 Speaker 1: she's likely to come out in this case. Now, Chief 121 00:07:50,280 --> 00:07:53,840 Speaker 1: Justice Roberts, who was in the minority, I believe in 122 00:07:53,920 --> 00:07:58,320 Speaker 1: the old burger Felt same sex marriage case, he seemed 123 00:07:58,360 --> 00:08:01,800 Speaker 1: to be asking questions about whether you know a different 124 00:08:01,840 --> 00:08:06,240 Speaker 1: policy would conflict with Oh Burger Felt, that's right. He 125 00:08:07,680 --> 00:08:10,320 Speaker 1: started right out of the gate in asking questions of 126 00:08:10,360 --> 00:08:14,520 Speaker 1: the Catholic Social Service Agency's lawyer. He seemed to lay 127 00:08:14,560 --> 00:08:17,840 Speaker 1: down a marker that Olberga fell and more generally, the 128 00:08:17,920 --> 00:08:22,560 Speaker 1: principle of equal treatment for gays and lesbians, especially married 129 00:08:22,600 --> 00:08:26,680 Speaker 1: gay and lesbian couples. Um is the law, and so 130 00:08:26,760 --> 00:08:30,200 Speaker 1: now let's try to figure out if this policy actually 131 00:08:30,400 --> 00:08:33,280 Speaker 1: violates it or not. It was really Chief Justice Roberts 132 00:08:33,320 --> 00:08:37,200 Speaker 1: who also seemed interested in an argument that might limit 133 00:08:37,240 --> 00:08:40,280 Speaker 1: the potential impact of this case. In other words, one 134 00:08:40,400 --> 00:08:44,240 Speaker 1: issue here was whether the Catholic Social Services Agency is 135 00:08:44,280 --> 00:08:48,319 Speaker 1: a government contractor or whether it just gets a license 136 00:08:48,400 --> 00:08:50,839 Speaker 1: from the city. If you just get a license from 137 00:08:50,840 --> 00:08:54,360 Speaker 1: the government, you're still a private individual and you're entitled 138 00:08:54,440 --> 00:08:57,760 Speaker 1: to conduct your business according to your own conscience. If 139 00:08:57,760 --> 00:09:02,199 Speaker 1: you're a government contractor, then you are basically doing the 140 00:09:02,240 --> 00:09:06,400 Speaker 1: government's work for it, and the government is more entitled 141 00:09:06,800 --> 00:09:10,600 Speaker 1: to set a standard of behavior, to regulate your work 142 00:09:10,640 --> 00:09:12,960 Speaker 1: and to say you have to do it this way 143 00:09:13,080 --> 00:09:16,120 Speaker 1: not that way. So that may be one distinction that 144 00:09:16,240 --> 00:09:19,920 Speaker 1: this case. That's important in this case whether the agency 145 00:09:20,000 --> 00:09:24,080 Speaker 1: is a licensee versus a government contractor, because that really 146 00:09:24,120 --> 00:09:28,280 Speaker 1: affects to what extent it has the rights independently to 147 00:09:28,360 --> 00:09:32,600 Speaker 1: carry on its own mission while still expecting a relationship 148 00:09:32,640 --> 00:09:35,440 Speaker 1: with the city versus hey, you know, if you're going 149 00:09:35,480 --> 00:09:38,160 Speaker 1: to do our work, you have to play by our rules. 150 00:09:38,200 --> 00:09:43,760 Speaker 1: And and and the Chief Justice seems sympathetic potentially to 151 00:09:43,800 --> 00:09:48,200 Speaker 1: the idea that Catholic Social Services Agency is closer to 152 00:09:48,280 --> 00:09:51,920 Speaker 1: a government contractor. And what about the liberals on the court? 153 00:09:52,040 --> 00:09:57,280 Speaker 1: Did their questioning suggest to any possible compromise or there 154 00:09:57,280 --> 00:10:00,920 Speaker 1: were some suggestions, particularly from Justice Fire, that he was 155 00:10:01,480 --> 00:10:04,320 Speaker 1: looking for a way, for example, to say, well, you know, 156 00:10:04,480 --> 00:10:08,720 Speaker 1: Catholic Social Services Agency, why can't you just kind of 157 00:10:08,760 --> 00:10:13,959 Speaker 1: look objectively about whether a particular couple, you know, meets 158 00:10:14,520 --> 00:10:18,920 Speaker 1: a clear sort of objective factual criteria. Uh, you know, 159 00:10:19,120 --> 00:10:22,880 Speaker 1: is their home good, do they lack any criminal background? 160 00:10:22,920 --> 00:10:26,880 Speaker 1: Would they objectively be good foster parents? And why can't 161 00:10:26,920 --> 00:10:30,559 Speaker 1: you just sort of factor out, um, their sexual orientation. 162 00:10:30,679 --> 00:10:34,120 Speaker 1: But the lawyer for the Catholic Social Services Agency pushed 163 00:10:34,120 --> 00:10:36,400 Speaker 1: back and then said, no, we it's not that simple. 164 00:10:36,440 --> 00:10:39,520 Speaker 1: We we can't ignore that if it's if it's known 165 00:10:39,559 --> 00:10:41,520 Speaker 1: that they are gay or lesbian at or if it's 166 00:10:41,520 --> 00:10:45,160 Speaker 1: the same sex couple that's in a marital relationship. Um, 167 00:10:45,600 --> 00:10:49,320 Speaker 1: just the very idea of certifying them as suitable for 168 00:10:49,840 --> 00:10:53,240 Speaker 1: services foster parents would be a violation of our religion. 169 00:10:53,600 --> 00:10:55,880 Speaker 1: You know, one interesting thing about this case is it 170 00:10:55,920 --> 00:10:59,000 Speaker 1: shows how you know, this is clearly a function that 171 00:10:59,120 --> 00:11:02,680 Speaker 1: government could do itself. It could do these inspections and 172 00:11:02,720 --> 00:11:07,720 Speaker 1: certifications with its own employees. Yet it chooses to involve 173 00:11:07,800 --> 00:11:12,080 Speaker 1: these private social service organizations in its work, and that 174 00:11:12,400 --> 00:11:16,160 Speaker 1: raises complications. Then to what extent is this the city 175 00:11:16,240 --> 00:11:19,600 Speaker 1: trying to tell the Catholic Church how to do its business? 176 00:11:19,720 --> 00:11:22,120 Speaker 1: Or is it about the Catholic Church trying to tell 177 00:11:22,240 --> 00:11:24,920 Speaker 1: the city how to do its business. It may be 178 00:11:25,000 --> 00:11:27,200 Speaker 1: a good thing that we have these sorts of public 179 00:11:27,280 --> 00:11:33,600 Speaker 1: private partnerships um. Certainly, religious organizations have long been involved 180 00:11:33,640 --> 00:11:37,240 Speaker 1: in work of caring for children and orphans and so forth. 181 00:11:37,600 --> 00:11:40,520 Speaker 1: But it does suggest that, you know, these sorts of 182 00:11:40,559 --> 00:11:46,640 Speaker 1: partnerships open up potential complications like this in past cases 183 00:11:46,920 --> 00:11:50,360 Speaker 1: where religious liberties are being balanced, especially look at the 184 00:11:50,440 --> 00:11:54,319 Speaker 1: last few terms. Almost every case the Supreme Court has 185 00:11:54,360 --> 00:11:58,960 Speaker 1: expanded religious liberties. So in this case, I mean, is 186 00:11:58,960 --> 00:12:01,600 Speaker 1: it likely that the Supreme Court is going to up 187 00:12:01,720 --> 00:12:06,920 Speaker 1: to expand religious liberties again at the expense of gay rights? Well? 188 00:12:07,400 --> 00:12:10,040 Speaker 1: Is you remember from the Masterpiece that the the the 189 00:12:10,480 --> 00:12:13,960 Speaker 1: the ultimate end, the ultimate opinion, the ultimate decision in 190 00:12:13,960 --> 00:12:17,760 Speaker 1: the masterpiece take Shop? Uh? Sort of? You know, the 191 00:12:17,800 --> 00:12:20,160 Speaker 1: case ended with a whimper rather than with a bang, 192 00:12:20,280 --> 00:12:22,840 Speaker 1: because the court in the end sort of duct the 193 00:12:23,000 --> 00:12:26,319 Speaker 1: larger question about the First Amendment rights of a Baker, 194 00:12:26,800 --> 00:12:30,600 Speaker 1: and it decided the case on pretty narrow, fact specific grounds. 195 00:12:30,640 --> 00:12:33,720 Speaker 1: It said, when miss Baker came before the authorities in 196 00:12:33,800 --> 00:12:37,760 Speaker 1: Colorado and they adjudicated his case, they treated him in 197 00:12:37,800 --> 00:12:43,160 Speaker 1: a way that was discriminatory and abusive towards his religious beliefs. 198 00:12:43,200 --> 00:12:46,360 Speaker 1: So they gave him the judgment, but they didn't make 199 00:12:46,480 --> 00:12:50,120 Speaker 1: a sweeping decision about the scope of the First Amendment. 200 00:12:50,559 --> 00:12:54,720 Speaker 1: That seems at least possible here. Um that that rather 201 00:12:54,800 --> 00:12:59,920 Speaker 1: than making some big innovation in the law of the Constitution, 202 00:13:00,200 --> 00:13:04,680 Speaker 1: religious religion clauses in a way that would greatly expand 203 00:13:04,800 --> 00:13:09,360 Speaker 1: the ability of religious organizations to follow their own courses 204 00:13:09,400 --> 00:13:14,880 Speaker 1: in violation of a state law. Um, it's possible that 205 00:13:15,120 --> 00:13:18,960 Speaker 1: the court might resolve this ny near word round might say, well, 206 00:13:19,679 --> 00:13:24,600 Speaker 1: in this situation, Uh, the religious organization is not being 207 00:13:24,640 --> 00:13:28,920 Speaker 1: treated even handedly. The city makes exemptions, and it has 208 00:13:29,000 --> 00:13:32,520 Speaker 1: holes in its policies and other circumstances. The fact it's 209 00:13:32,559 --> 00:13:36,360 Speaker 1: not willing to give an exemption or accommodation here shows 210 00:13:36,400 --> 00:13:40,160 Speaker 1: it's holding the religious organization to a different standard. If 211 00:13:40,160 --> 00:13:43,280 Speaker 1: the Court did that, that would simply be an application 212 00:13:43,320 --> 00:13:47,400 Speaker 1: of a pretty long standing doctrine of of that that 213 00:13:47,600 --> 00:13:52,680 Speaker 1: that neutral rules of general application are okay like nondiscrimination laws, 214 00:13:52,960 --> 00:13:55,439 Speaker 1: as long as you apply the even handedly. But if 215 00:13:55,440 --> 00:13:59,000 Speaker 1: the treatment is not even handedly, that's when we get nervous, 216 00:13:59,000 --> 00:14:02,480 Speaker 1: and then it's objects the case to a stricter level 217 00:14:02,520 --> 00:14:05,160 Speaker 1: of scrutiny. I tend to think that might be what 218 00:14:05,320 --> 00:14:09,360 Speaker 1: happens in this case. The justices didn't seem to betray 219 00:14:09,559 --> 00:14:14,760 Speaker 1: any particular appetite through their questions anyway for making the 220 00:14:14,880 --> 00:14:19,800 Speaker 1: kind of broad sweeping changes that might affect other cases 221 00:14:19,840 --> 00:14:23,440 Speaker 1: and other plaintiffs and other parties down the road. Is 222 00:14:23,440 --> 00:14:26,600 Speaker 1: that true even in light of the fact that there 223 00:14:26,680 --> 00:14:32,200 Speaker 1: was an opinion where Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito 224 00:14:32,320 --> 00:14:36,560 Speaker 1: seemed to be urging the court to reconsider same sex marriage. 225 00:14:37,520 --> 00:14:39,720 Speaker 1: That's right. That that was a different case. That was 226 00:14:39,760 --> 00:14:44,000 Speaker 1: the case of the Kentucky clerk from who had denied 227 00:14:44,120 --> 00:14:47,720 Speaker 1: marriage licenses to a same sex couple, and they sued her, 228 00:14:47,800 --> 00:14:50,920 Speaker 1: and it came to the court because she's claiming uh 229 00:14:51,000 --> 00:14:53,880 Speaker 1: immunity from their suit. And the Court turned down the 230 00:14:53,920 --> 00:14:58,280 Speaker 1: opportunity to hear that case, and Justices Alito and Thomas 231 00:14:58,760 --> 00:15:01,400 Speaker 1: right issued an opinion and that said, you know, this 232 00:15:01,440 --> 00:15:04,640 Speaker 1: case just illustrates the kind of clashes that we're going 233 00:15:04,680 --> 00:15:07,760 Speaker 1: to see. That that this case that the court deciding 234 00:15:07,760 --> 00:15:11,800 Speaker 1: the same sex marriage issue, uh, it was premature, should 235 00:15:11,800 --> 00:15:15,520 Speaker 1: have left it to the democratic process. There there would 236 00:15:15,560 --> 00:15:21,320 Speaker 1: be clashes uh and and and negative implications for religious liberty. 237 00:15:21,680 --> 00:15:25,040 Speaker 1: We told you so, because of course, the clark in 238 00:15:25,120 --> 00:15:28,400 Speaker 1: Kentucky had said that her religious beliefs prevented her from 239 00:15:28,480 --> 00:15:31,200 Speaker 1: issuing the license. I'm not sure if we're going to 240 00:15:31,280 --> 00:15:35,640 Speaker 1: see that here, because this case isn't squarely about the 241 00:15:35,680 --> 00:15:40,360 Speaker 1: same sex marriage. It doesn't involve the ability to get 242 00:15:40,400 --> 00:15:43,680 Speaker 1: married or the ability to get a marriage license, which 243 00:15:43,760 --> 00:15:46,640 Speaker 1: is what this case that we've talked about involving Kim 244 00:15:46,760 --> 00:15:51,600 Speaker 1: Davis involved. Um, this is somewhat more broadly about discrimination 245 00:15:51,640 --> 00:15:55,960 Speaker 1: against gays and lesbians on the basis of sexual orientation, 246 00:15:56,120 --> 00:16:00,440 Speaker 1: not about the marriage squarely. Although you know true some 247 00:16:00,520 --> 00:16:03,360 Speaker 1: of the people who are uh involved here who are 248 00:16:03,360 --> 00:16:07,360 Speaker 1: concerned are are legally married gay couples. They're concerned that 249 00:16:07,400 --> 00:16:10,560 Speaker 1: they might be turned away. Um. So it is a 250 00:16:10,600 --> 00:16:13,760 Speaker 1: case about religious liberty. It is a case about gay rights. 251 00:16:13,760 --> 00:16:16,920 Speaker 1: But nothing in the questioning I think, at least from 252 00:16:16,960 --> 00:16:23,200 Speaker 1: Justice Thomas suggested the sort of almost passion that they 253 00:16:23,600 --> 00:16:26,680 Speaker 1: betrayed in that separate opinion in the Kim Data's case. 254 00:16:27,240 --> 00:16:31,080 Speaker 1: Thanks Steve. That's Steve Sanders of Indiana University's Morris School 255 00:16:31,120 --> 00:16:34,720 Speaker 1: of Law. Parents who have lost their jobs during the 256 00:16:34,760 --> 00:16:38,480 Speaker 1: pandemic are behind a surge of litigation against employers they 257 00:16:38,480 --> 00:16:41,960 Speaker 1: allege discriminated against them were taking care of their kids 258 00:16:42,000 --> 00:16:45,200 Speaker 1: when schools closed. Most of the suits have been brought 259 00:16:45,320 --> 00:16:48,320 Speaker 1: by women who are leaving the workforce in record numbers 260 00:16:48,320 --> 00:16:52,280 Speaker 1: this year. My guest is Bloomberg Legal reporter David Yaffee Beleni. 261 00:16:52,720 --> 00:16:54,880 Speaker 1: David tell us more about these suits and what the 262 00:16:54,920 --> 00:16:59,080 Speaker 1: allegations are. Sure, so, since the beginning of the pandemic, 263 00:16:59,600 --> 00:17:03,280 Speaker 1: schools and bigcare is shut down and parents have had 264 00:17:03,320 --> 00:17:05,480 Speaker 1: to figure out how to take care of their children 265 00:17:05,680 --> 00:17:09,960 Speaker 1: during the day while doing their jobs. The professional lives 266 00:17:10,000 --> 00:17:13,840 Speaker 1: of millions people across the country have been totally offended. 267 00:17:14,359 --> 00:17:19,160 Speaker 1: And in some cases employers have responded generously to that 268 00:17:19,440 --> 00:17:23,400 Speaker 1: they've allowed parents to work on flexible schedules, they've let 269 00:17:23,400 --> 00:17:27,040 Speaker 1: parents take time off so that they can supervise Zoom 270 00:17:27,080 --> 00:17:30,960 Speaker 1: School for their kids. But in other cases and employers 271 00:17:31,080 --> 00:17:33,960 Speaker 1: have treated parents really badly, at least according to this 272 00:17:34,280 --> 00:17:37,240 Speaker 1: sort of surge of of lawsuits that we're seeing across 273 00:17:37,280 --> 00:17:40,960 Speaker 1: the country now. Some parents are saying that employers have 274 00:17:41,080 --> 00:17:44,960 Speaker 1: denied them leave time that they're entitled to under the laws. 275 00:17:45,480 --> 00:17:48,399 Speaker 1: Other parents have said that they've taken leave time and 276 00:17:48,400 --> 00:17:52,960 Speaker 1: then based retaliation when they've returned, basically being punished for 277 00:17:53,000 --> 00:17:56,480 Speaker 1: taking time off to look after their kids and in 278 00:17:56,560 --> 00:18:00,320 Speaker 1: all likelihood, this legal battle looks spanned in the coming 279 00:18:00,359 --> 00:18:04,720 Speaker 1: months as the pandemic in size and employers across virtually 280 00:18:04,760 --> 00:18:10,000 Speaker 1: every industry start start to losation. You talked to Dressanna 281 00:18:10,160 --> 00:18:14,080 Speaker 1: Rio's who had been fired tell us about her story, 282 00:18:14,240 --> 00:18:17,480 Speaker 1: which seems to be an example of what's been happening. 283 00:18:18,320 --> 00:18:21,160 Speaker 1: So Drassanna is a is a mother in San Diego 284 00:18:21,320 --> 00:18:24,280 Speaker 1: with a couple of young children. UM. She worked for 285 00:18:24,280 --> 00:18:28,320 Speaker 1: an insurance company called Hub International, and, like so many 286 00:18:28,359 --> 00:18:32,280 Speaker 1: other parents across the country, when the pandemic hit, suddenly 287 00:18:32,440 --> 00:18:34,960 Speaker 1: became a lot more difficult to do her job the 288 00:18:34,960 --> 00:18:37,040 Speaker 1: way that she had always always done it. You know, 289 00:18:37,080 --> 00:18:40,040 Speaker 1: previously her kid's been in daycare. Now she had to 290 00:18:40,119 --> 00:18:43,000 Speaker 1: kind of figure out how to supervise them during during 291 00:18:43,040 --> 00:18:47,359 Speaker 1: the day. And one sort of problem that her boss 292 00:18:47,440 --> 00:18:51,359 Speaker 1: kept raising is that sometimes her kids were audible in 293 00:18:51,400 --> 00:18:55,480 Speaker 1: the background of of conference calls during the work day. UM. 294 00:18:55,520 --> 00:18:57,640 Speaker 1: And she basically said to her boss, you know what 295 00:18:57,680 --> 00:18:59,719 Speaker 1: am I supposed to do? I can't walk my one 296 00:18:59,800 --> 00:19:02,600 Speaker 1: year old than the closet. But he was adamant that 297 00:19:02,600 --> 00:19:04,439 Speaker 1: that she had to do something about this, and that 298 00:19:04,560 --> 00:19:07,640 Speaker 1: basically started a kind of serious of events that led 299 00:19:07,680 --> 00:19:12,920 Speaker 1: to her being fired in June, and eventually she sued 300 00:19:13,080 --> 00:19:16,440 Speaker 1: up international kind of to protest that firing, accusing them 301 00:19:16,480 --> 00:19:20,080 Speaker 1: of gender discrimination and treating her differently because she's a 302 00:19:20,119 --> 00:19:24,119 Speaker 1: working mother. On the employer's side, is it always wrong 303 00:19:24,240 --> 00:19:27,440 Speaker 1: for the employer to say, because there are other stories 304 00:19:27,480 --> 00:19:30,879 Speaker 1: of children in the background, etcetera. Is it wrong for 305 00:19:30,920 --> 00:19:35,240 Speaker 1: the employer to demand a workplace setting when parents have 306 00:19:35,400 --> 00:19:37,359 Speaker 1: children in the background, because I can imagine that it 307 00:19:37,680 --> 00:19:41,119 Speaker 1: is distracting. Is that by itself a bad thing for 308 00:19:41,200 --> 00:19:44,880 Speaker 1: employers to say? So, you know, it sort of runs 309 00:19:44,880 --> 00:19:47,000 Speaker 1: along at spectrum and this is one of the naughty 310 00:19:47,320 --> 00:19:51,320 Speaker 1: legal issues that um presumably some of this litigation will 311 00:19:51,400 --> 00:19:54,600 Speaker 1: end up kind of illuminating over over the next few months. 312 00:19:54,680 --> 00:19:58,280 Speaker 1: You know, these are unprecedented circumstances, and so these sorts 313 00:19:58,320 --> 00:20:02,520 Speaker 1: of issues haven't really been been litigated before. So the 314 00:20:02,560 --> 00:20:06,360 Speaker 1: extent to which an employer is required to make compromises 315 00:20:06,359 --> 00:20:11,560 Speaker 1: and accommodations for workers whose parenting responsibilities in some way 316 00:20:11,600 --> 00:20:14,639 Speaker 1: interfere with kind of this loose functioning of of the 317 00:20:14,680 --> 00:20:17,119 Speaker 1: work day, the kind of legality of that is not 318 00:20:17,680 --> 00:20:20,439 Speaker 1: is not totally settled. But there's no argument that a 319 00:20:20,440 --> 00:20:23,919 Speaker 1: lot of consultants for businesses are making now, which is that, 320 00:20:24,359 --> 00:20:27,560 Speaker 1: you know, regardless of the legal questions here, it's in 321 00:20:27,640 --> 00:20:31,920 Speaker 1: the interests of employers to create accommodations for working parents 322 00:20:32,000 --> 00:20:36,960 Speaker 1: just for reputational reasons, um, for employee retention reasons, um. 323 00:20:37,000 --> 00:20:40,560 Speaker 1: Eventually the pandemic will end, and presumably some of these 324 00:20:40,600 --> 00:20:42,760 Speaker 1: working parents will kind of return to offices and their 325 00:20:42,800 --> 00:20:45,320 Speaker 1: kids will go back to school, and at that point, 326 00:20:45,400 --> 00:20:47,919 Speaker 1: you'd you'd want parents to have kind of warm and 327 00:20:48,000 --> 00:20:51,000 Speaker 1: fuzzy feelings about how they were treated during this kind 328 00:20:51,000 --> 00:20:54,960 Speaker 1: of period of disruption. And so there are kind of 329 00:20:55,040 --> 00:20:58,280 Speaker 1: practical and strategic reasons and you know, moral reasons to 330 00:20:58,440 --> 00:21:01,800 Speaker 1: treat parents with a lot of flexibility during this period, 331 00:21:02,200 --> 00:21:05,240 Speaker 1: even if there's some kind of legal wiggle room. And 332 00:21:05,480 --> 00:21:10,240 Speaker 1: what's the difference between proving a retaliation case and proving 333 00:21:10,280 --> 00:21:15,359 Speaker 1: a discrimination case. If a lawsuits alleging retaliation, all that 334 00:21:15,440 --> 00:21:19,159 Speaker 1: the planefts needs to show is that when in this case, 335 00:21:19,400 --> 00:21:22,400 Speaker 1: the working parent returned from a period of parental leaves, 336 00:21:22,800 --> 00:21:26,359 Speaker 1: they were treated differently, they were treated worse than before. 337 00:21:26,880 --> 00:21:30,840 Speaker 1: That's all it takes to prove retaliation. Proving discrimination is 338 00:21:30,840 --> 00:21:36,000 Speaker 1: a little bit more complicated. It requires essentially demonstrating that 339 00:21:36,520 --> 00:21:40,919 Speaker 1: the reason that a parent was treated in a certain way, 340 00:21:41,040 --> 00:21:44,520 Speaker 1: that the treatment was rooted in discrimination, and that that 341 00:21:44,680 --> 00:21:47,880 Speaker 1: the motive of the employer was to discriminate. That's more 342 00:21:47,920 --> 00:21:51,040 Speaker 1: complicated to prove. In a lot of these cases, UM 343 00:21:51,119 --> 00:21:55,919 Speaker 1: lawyers will allege both retaliation and discrimination, knowing that retaliation 344 00:21:56,200 --> 00:21:59,240 Speaker 1: is a lower threshold than discrimination and that they're more 345 00:21:59,280 --> 00:22:03,200 Speaker 1: likely to win on that front. Employers who just out 346 00:22:03,200 --> 00:22:09,040 Speaker 1: and out refused to grant employees working parents leave, is 347 00:22:09,040 --> 00:22:13,520 Speaker 1: that illegal under the Family's First Coronavirus Response Act? In 348 00:22:13,560 --> 00:22:16,680 Speaker 1: some cases it is so. The Family's First Coronavirus Response 349 00:22:16,720 --> 00:22:20,560 Speaker 1: Act with legislation passed by Congress in March um as 350 00:22:20,600 --> 00:22:24,119 Speaker 1: part of that kind of first wave of political response 351 00:22:24,200 --> 00:22:26,960 Speaker 1: to the devastation of the pandemic. Um that did a 352 00:22:26,960 --> 00:22:29,080 Speaker 1: lot of things, but one thing it did was grant 353 00:22:29,320 --> 00:22:33,679 Speaker 1: ten extra weeks have paid parental leads to certain types 354 00:22:33,720 --> 00:22:38,119 Speaker 1: of workers, workers at businesses that employ fewer than five people, 355 00:22:38,359 --> 00:22:41,919 Speaker 1: and certain public employees as well. So there's been you know, 356 00:22:42,040 --> 00:22:45,680 Speaker 1: litigation over the past few months about you know, whether 357 00:22:45,840 --> 00:22:51,440 Speaker 1: certain employees meet the requirements, the eligibility requirements of this legislation. Um. 358 00:22:51,680 --> 00:22:54,040 Speaker 1: So it's not the case that, you know, every worker 359 00:22:54,080 --> 00:22:57,280 Speaker 1: in America is entitled to leave under this program. Um. 360 00:22:57,600 --> 00:22:59,679 Speaker 1: But in a lot of these lawsuits, parents are saying 361 00:23:00,400 --> 00:23:03,399 Speaker 1: I was pretty clearly entitled to leave. You know, the 362 00:23:03,480 --> 00:23:06,399 Speaker 1: company I work for is is this size, it's fewer 363 00:23:06,400 --> 00:23:10,760 Speaker 1: than five employees. I asked for leave. I specifically cited 364 00:23:10,880 --> 00:23:13,840 Speaker 1: this new program that I read about in the newspapers, 365 00:23:13,880 --> 00:23:16,720 Speaker 1: and my boss said, too bad, you can't take that leave. 366 00:23:17,119 --> 00:23:20,720 Speaker 1: And that does appear to be illegal, appears to kind 367 00:23:20,720 --> 00:23:24,640 Speaker 1: of violate the protections to the government was offering under 368 00:23:24,680 --> 00:23:29,560 Speaker 1: this bit of legislation. I was surprised by the numbers 369 00:23:29,680 --> 00:23:33,800 Speaker 1: of women who are leaving the workforce this year. Tell 370 00:23:33,880 --> 00:23:37,840 Speaker 1: us about that and whether it's expected to continue. So 371 00:23:38,240 --> 00:23:41,400 Speaker 1: the numbers in September, for example, are pretty striking. More 372 00:23:41,440 --> 00:23:44,840 Speaker 1: than six hundred thousand women left the workforce that month alone, 373 00:23:44,960 --> 00:23:47,920 Speaker 1: compared to just seventy eight thousand men. Now, of course, 374 00:23:47,960 --> 00:23:50,360 Speaker 1: not all these people are parents, you know, not all 375 00:23:50,400 --> 00:23:53,119 Speaker 1: of them are being fired for childcare related reasons. Some 376 00:23:53,200 --> 00:23:56,520 Speaker 1: are leaving the work first force voluntarily. But this is 377 00:23:56,760 --> 00:23:59,920 Speaker 1: kind of part of a broad picture in which when 378 00:24:00,040 --> 00:24:03,240 Speaker 1: men working, women are feeling the brunt of the pandemic 379 00:24:03,320 --> 00:24:05,640 Speaker 1: in a way that men just aren't. There are all 380 00:24:05,640 --> 00:24:08,359 Speaker 1: sorts of reasons for that, but one is the child 381 00:24:08,440 --> 00:24:10,960 Speaker 1: care burden that women face. Some of the women who 382 00:24:10,960 --> 00:24:14,480 Speaker 1: are leaving voluntarily are doing so because they don't have 383 00:24:14,600 --> 00:24:17,280 Speaker 1: very many other options they need to take. They need 384 00:24:17,320 --> 00:24:20,200 Speaker 1: to take care of their children well while schools are closed. 385 00:24:20,440 --> 00:24:23,320 Speaker 1: But then others sort of fall into the category that 386 00:24:23,440 --> 00:24:27,120 Speaker 1: that we've been discussing. You know, women who were fired 387 00:24:27,280 --> 00:24:31,160 Speaker 1: because they were trying to juggle work and childcare and 388 00:24:31,480 --> 00:24:34,959 Speaker 1: their employer just wasn't willing to make compromises to sustain that. 389 00:24:35,880 --> 00:24:40,840 Speaker 1: And Joan Williams, a law professor who runs the Center 390 00:24:40,880 --> 00:24:43,800 Speaker 1: for Work Life Law, told you we're going to be 391 00:24:43,840 --> 00:24:47,360 Speaker 1: seeing the economic consequences of this period, and they're going 392 00:24:47,400 --> 00:24:51,840 Speaker 1: to be to impoverish women and children for decades. It's 393 00:24:51,840 --> 00:24:56,119 Speaker 1: a pretty stark prediction. Yeah. And and and Joan Williams, 394 00:24:56,000 --> 00:24:59,000 Speaker 1: as will really wanted the leading figures in this part 395 00:24:59,040 --> 00:25:01,280 Speaker 1: of the law. She's kind of a sort of a 396 00:25:01,400 --> 00:25:06,480 Speaker 1: pioneering legal expert um who's spoken and written a lot 397 00:25:06,520 --> 00:25:10,320 Speaker 1: about workplace discrimination and how it affects women in particular. 398 00:25:10,320 --> 00:25:12,879 Speaker 1: And how it affects the economic prospects. So she's an 399 00:25:12,880 --> 00:25:15,560 Speaker 1: authority on this sort of thing, and and her prediction 400 00:25:15,680 --> 00:25:18,199 Speaker 1: is is pretty dire. And it makes sense when you 401 00:25:18,320 --> 00:25:21,439 Speaker 1: when you look at those numbers from September six women 402 00:25:21,600 --> 00:25:25,120 Speaker 1: versus a much smaller group of men who have left 403 00:25:25,240 --> 00:25:27,960 Speaker 1: the workforce. Um That in the long term, this is 404 00:25:27,960 --> 00:25:31,360 Speaker 1: going to make it harder for women to return to 405 00:25:31,560 --> 00:25:33,960 Speaker 1: work after the pandemic ends. It's going to set back 406 00:25:34,000 --> 00:25:37,639 Speaker 1: their careers. It's maybe going to reverse games that women 407 00:25:37,680 --> 00:25:40,040 Speaker 1: have made in the workplace over the last last few 408 00:25:40,040 --> 00:25:42,760 Speaker 1: decades and make it harder for them to rise up 409 00:25:42,800 --> 00:25:46,879 Speaker 1: for corporate ranks, positions that come with greater responsibilities and 410 00:25:46,920 --> 00:25:49,560 Speaker 1: that pay better. Um. And that the ramifications of this 411 00:25:49,680 --> 00:25:52,679 Speaker 1: could continue, you know, long after the sort of short 412 00:25:52,800 --> 00:25:56,760 Speaker 1: term effects of the virus have worn off, and we're 413 00:25:56,800 --> 00:25:58,840 Speaker 1: coming towards the end of the year, so it's going 414 00:25:58,840 --> 00:26:03,680 Speaker 1: to be time for phrases and promotions and bonuses. Are 415 00:26:03,720 --> 00:26:09,000 Speaker 1: the experts telling you that working parents may be affected negatively. Yes. 416 00:26:09,080 --> 00:26:11,679 Speaker 1: One thing that's important to remember about the litigation is 417 00:26:11,680 --> 00:26:14,600 Speaker 1: that these lawsuits that have been filed at least forty 418 00:26:14,640 --> 00:26:17,640 Speaker 1: across the country are kind of zeroing in on the 419 00:26:17,640 --> 00:26:23,800 Speaker 1: most egregious examples of discrimination or abuse by by employers, 420 00:26:23,800 --> 00:26:26,800 Speaker 1: But in the vast majority of cases, working mothers and 421 00:26:26,840 --> 00:26:30,960 Speaker 1: fathers aren't being explicitly denied leave that they're legally entitled to, 422 00:26:31,560 --> 00:26:33,520 Speaker 1: or told that if they take that leave that when 423 00:26:33,560 --> 00:26:37,880 Speaker 1: they return they'll be demoted. The consequences that working parents 424 00:26:37,960 --> 00:26:41,000 Speaker 1: across the board are more likely to experience are these 425 00:26:41,080 --> 00:26:44,800 Speaker 1: kinds of subtler effects. A job posting opens up within 426 00:26:44,840 --> 00:26:48,359 Speaker 1: the company, the boss is trying to decide who you know, 427 00:26:48,440 --> 00:26:53,280 Speaker 1: earned that promotion, and without you know, consciously attempting to 428 00:26:53,440 --> 00:26:57,320 Speaker 1: discriminate against the working parents, the boss ends up favoring 429 00:26:57,400 --> 00:26:59,560 Speaker 1: somebody who doesn't have kids and who's therefore been more 430 00:26:59,560 --> 00:27:02,400 Speaker 1: productive over the last six months then the person who's 431 00:27:02,400 --> 00:27:06,359 Speaker 1: been balancing working child here. And combatting those sort of 432 00:27:06,520 --> 00:27:10,760 Speaker 1: subtler forms of discrimination is much more difficult because it's 433 00:27:10,800 --> 00:27:14,280 Speaker 1: not the type of thing that's that's easy to see over. 434 00:27:14,359 --> 00:27:17,840 Speaker 1: It might not necessarily be illegal, and a manager might 435 00:27:17,880 --> 00:27:20,840 Speaker 1: not even realize that they're playing into it, and yet 436 00:27:20,920 --> 00:27:24,639 Speaker 1: it's likely to start happening over the next few months, 437 00:27:25,160 --> 00:27:28,680 Speaker 1: as you know, reasons are being considered and promotions are 438 00:27:28,680 --> 00:27:33,080 Speaker 1: being considered. And the other side of the picture is 439 00:27:33,160 --> 00:27:37,480 Speaker 1: the workers who are diligently working and have found ways 440 00:27:37,520 --> 00:27:39,840 Speaker 1: to deal with their families or don't have families at all, 441 00:27:40,320 --> 00:27:43,520 Speaker 1: And do they feel like they're getting the short end 442 00:27:43,560 --> 00:27:46,480 Speaker 1: of the stick and that the workers with kids are 443 00:27:47,000 --> 00:27:50,119 Speaker 1: enjoying more benefits and flexibility. Yes. So there have been 444 00:27:50,160 --> 00:27:52,840 Speaker 1: some examples of that reported over the last few months, 445 00:27:52,840 --> 00:27:57,879 Speaker 1: particularly at tech companies like Facebook and Salesforce, where management 446 00:27:57,880 --> 00:28:00,800 Speaker 1: has offered quite generous benefits to com parents, and that 447 00:28:00,920 --> 00:28:05,399 Speaker 1: started to grate on a younger workforce that's accustomed to 448 00:28:05,760 --> 00:28:09,359 Speaker 1: kind of devoting a lot of their lives to their careers. 449 00:28:09,400 --> 00:28:11,520 Speaker 1: Some of those workers are saying, hey, you know, why 450 00:28:11,600 --> 00:28:14,960 Speaker 1: is that older employee who has kids getting extra time 451 00:28:15,000 --> 00:28:17,960 Speaker 1: off when I'm working harder than I've ever done before 452 00:28:18,080 --> 00:28:20,920 Speaker 1: and my benefits haven't changed. That's led to a little 453 00:28:20,920 --> 00:28:24,080 Speaker 1: bit of kind of internal discontent to some of those companies. 454 00:28:24,240 --> 00:28:25,960 Speaker 1: And it's not just in tech, you know. I spoke 455 00:28:26,040 --> 00:28:28,800 Speaker 1: to a consultant who worked with companies since she said 456 00:28:28,800 --> 00:28:31,360 Speaker 1: that it's something that she's sort of staying across the boards, 457 00:28:31,400 --> 00:28:34,800 Speaker 1: and again, that's something that's only likely to intensify over 458 00:28:34,840 --> 00:28:39,120 Speaker 1: the next few months. Looking forward to the experts expect 459 00:28:39,320 --> 00:28:43,440 Speaker 1: that this experience we're having during the pandemic might change 460 00:28:43,480 --> 00:28:47,000 Speaker 1: the workplace for the better in any respect. Well, I'm 461 00:28:47,000 --> 00:28:51,120 Speaker 1: glad you asked that question, because I've been founding pessimistic 462 00:28:51,360 --> 00:28:54,800 Speaker 1: whole time. But one note of optimism here is that 463 00:28:55,240 --> 00:28:59,920 Speaker 1: employers that are offering improved benefits and embracing the advance 464 00:29:00,040 --> 00:29:03,880 Speaker 1: dages of flexible work schedules for parents may continue doing 465 00:29:03,880 --> 00:29:06,080 Speaker 1: that after the pandemic, aism that could be a long 466 00:29:06,200 --> 00:29:09,840 Speaker 1: term game. There are employers who would never have considered 467 00:29:09,880 --> 00:29:12,120 Speaker 1: doing this if they hadn't been forced to, who are 468 00:29:12,120 --> 00:29:15,719 Speaker 1: now realizing, wait, this actually works pretty well. We can 469 00:29:15,760 --> 00:29:18,480 Speaker 1: afford to give this level of flexibility to parents without 470 00:29:18,640 --> 00:29:22,800 Speaker 1: compromising our bottom line productivity, and those sorts of companies 471 00:29:22,880 --> 00:29:25,640 Speaker 1: might continue doing that in the long term, so that 472 00:29:25,840 --> 00:29:29,560 Speaker 1: benefits unlikely to sort of outweigh the immediate and profoundly 473 00:29:29,640 --> 00:29:33,440 Speaker 1: damaging economic costs that especially women are experiencing. But it's 474 00:29:33,440 --> 00:29:36,640 Speaker 1: it's a silver lining here. Thanks David. That's Bloomberg Legal 475 00:29:36,680 --> 00:29:39,400 Speaker 1: reporter David Yaffie Belenie, and that's it for the edition 476 00:29:39,440 --> 00:29:42,360 Speaker 1: of the Bloomberg Law Show. I'm June Grosso, Thanks so 477 00:29:42,440 --> 00:29:44,760 Speaker 1: much for listening, and remember to tune to The Bloomberg 478 00:29:44,840 --> 00:29:47,680 Speaker 1: Law Show every week night. Attend them eastern right here 479 00:29:47,720 --> 00:29:48,680 Speaker 1: on Bloomberg Radio.