Eversheds partner cleared of potential discrimination

Readers' comments (40)

• National Rival | 29-Jan-2010 12:02 pm

  Something tells me that the 'Shed's reputation as a terrible recruiter / employer wont be salvaged one smidge.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Cheap Shot | 29-Jan-2010 2:49 pm

  @ National Rival
  
  Grow up

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Rural bliss | 29-Jan-2010 4:51 pm

  The usual prissy response - “Eversheds does not condone any kind of discrimination or behaviour which is counter to our extensive equality and diversity polices.”
  Have they no idea how false this sounds? It's as though it's been generated by a computer.
  Some might think she'd had a lucky escape.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 29-Jan-2010 5:19 pm

  Reading the story on the other website, this email appears to have been a private email sent to two Heads of Department (i.e. in a managerial position) and marked "private". Quite how it has seen the light of day says more about whoever leaked it to the legal press than it does about this message. I think we can all guess who that was. Tittle tattle of the most puerile order.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 29-Jan-2010 5:38 pm

  Oh it's all a riddled with hypocrisy from top to bottom. Eversheds won an Equality award from the Law Society in 2008 and it has been reported here how they are at the vanguard of monitoring Equality. But it's all just a barrell load of tosh as long as attitudes like this persist. It's like a bunch of Jesuit Brothers handling out awards for Kindness to Children.
  And then I turn to your Hot 100. If I flick through the pages for Private Practice and The Bar I see a 3:2 ratio of men to women (a fair reflection of the sample pool, I guess) but nary a face that is not whiter than White White McWhite's , Professor of White at White University.
  Cant, cant and more cant.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Dan Russell | 29-Jan-2010 9:27 pm

  To say that "Eversheds does not condone any kind of discrimination" is ridiculous. Discrimination is discernment. No solicitor could make professional judgements without discriminating. Unlawful discrimination in employment on grounds of sex is quite a different matter and indefensible.
  I feel sorry for Dutson, though. He was only asking for guidance on how to handle the interview. I'm sure many of us would find it a little tricky.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 29-Jan-2010 11:19 pm

  Why is Stuart Dutson no longer on Eversheds website?

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Anonymous | 31-Jan-2010 6:12 am

  This resonates with Franz Kafka’s unsuccessful attempts to enter “The Castle” and the subsequent moral vacillation demonstrated in Dostoevsky's “Notes from the Underground.” In both examples, it is universally understood that “truth” manifests ‘outside the box.’ Yet, in the instant case, Mr. Dutson’s perception ‘whilst upon his throne’ from ‘inside the box’ demonstrates an inability to correlate truth with the facts. It is submitted that the candidate was invited to the firm because certain benchmarks were achieved aligned with the firm’s hiring criteria. If these achievements were realized continuously with new motherhood, then it can be inferred that the candidate is either a fantastic time manager, acclimates to tremendous responsibility, maintains sufficient family support or adopts a combination of all. If a consensus were taken, it may deduce that this type of candidate is not only resourceful but also a candidate of choice. However (unless facts prove to the contrary) the query respecting the candidate’s proposed inability ‘to balance work and child’ does not appear to be problem. The fundamental issue is that the firm wants to maintain “exclusive possession” or an “outright ownership” over the candidate’s life and Mr. Dutson’s ‘notice’ of the child is not dissimilar to a purchaser being made aware of an overriding interest for which he may be bound. Thus, the question begs as to whether or not Mr. Dutson can maintain a work life balance now that this competing interest has conjured a false perception of his diminished power and control.
  
  To my learned and honored colleagues my opinion and remedy would be thus: Mr. Dutson should immediately remove himself from ‘inside the box’ until such time as he gains some common sense, garners a ‘reality check’ and warmth returns to the cockles of his heart. The alternative remedy would be to take “two chill pills” twice daily and go to the pub immediately to devise a plan as to how he shall refrain from manipulation (in massive doses) in order to give rise to a more actualized management style. —Group hug, now let’s crack on, shall we
  
  Respectfully submitted,
  Dandridge

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Edmund Blackadder | 1-Feb-2010 1:22 am

  You slightly undermine your point by ripping off my 20 year old material.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

• Real Mad Ridd | 1-Feb-2010 10:01 am

  It seems he couldn't do right for wrong - he raised a question to make sure he wasn't doing anything wrong and he still gets accused of discrimination for even asking the question. It is more of an indictment of the climate of fear and the hysteria that permeates the politically correct society of the UK. And no, I am not at Eversheds. I am not even in the UK, thank God.

  Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment