The coverage of sex discrimination cases has such a standard template that it is hard to believe that articles like these are written by human beings rather than being produced by a keyboard macro. There are three ingredients to such a story: a well-groomed woman, a salacious anecdote and a huge sum of money. You have a choice of two flavours of article, of course. If one is writing for a leftwing newspaper, or for the women's section, the story is: "Isn't it terrible that these highly paid bankers did these terrible things to this reasonably attractive woman?" If one is writing for a rightwing newspaper, or for the business section, the story is: "Isn't this a huge amount of money that this reasonably attractive woman is getting, for this fairly minor slight?" Not optional, of course, is a big colour picture of the plaintiff, usually showing a fair amount of leg, to get over the fact that this is a sex discrimination story, but usually showing little or no cleavage, to emphasis that is is a sex discrimination story.
The facts of these cases, as presented, are always: here is a woman, she had her bum pinched, or her breasts commented on, or whatever, and now she is suing her employers for several million pounds. Which is why, win or lose, the plaintiffs in these cases always end up being the object of uncomprehending jealousy. Most people have a fairly major problem in understanding why someone should get more compensation for being jokingly invited to a lapdancing club, or asked to give someone a shoulder massage, than one typically gets for having a leg chopped off. And, inevitably, the end result is articles like this one, saying that it looks really bad for the sisterhood if women are such crybabies, and who will want to employ them if a simple comment can land the firm with a seven-figure settlement?
The facts in the newspaper are not the facts. Let me explain.
Every year in the big banks, there is something called a "bonus round". During this period, some people are given large sums of money, some people are given significantly smaller sums of money and some people are given nothing at all. Just to clarify here, when I say "large sums of money", I mean between a quarter of a million and a million pounds, and, yes thank you, I am aware how that compares to a nurse's salary. It's called capitalism and it doesn't look like it's going anywhere any time soon so can we get on with this blog post please? The people in the "significantly smaller" and "nothing at all" bonus groups are usually unhappy about the fact. If someone thinks that they have been unfairly screwed on their bonus because they are a woman, what are they going to do except sue?
Having made the decision to sue, the case usually falls into the hands of a specialist lawyer. The lawyer will typically want to settle the case out of court for a large sum of money and a quick turnover. The way that you persuade people to settle out of court is to convince them that a whole load of bad and embarrassing publicity will come out for them if they don't settle soon. Hence, the client is asked to dredge through her memory for bad behaviour that will look really awful in the cold light of day or in the newspapers. "Boys" being "boys", it is unlikely that there will be a shortage of material. Because sex discrimination stories are written according to the template, the bad publicity does indeed arrive if the case isn't settled promptly.
And so the case gets settled, or maybe it goes to trial. I have no specific information about the merits of any of these cases, but the fact is that if the case is about six-figure bonuses, and the plaintiff reckons she's been done out of 10 of them, then the settlement is going to be a seven-figure sum. The actual case, and certainly the settlement, has nothing to do with the pinching, poking and stripping, and everything to do with the allegation of unfairness over bonuses, but the world is allowed to believe that in the modern financial sector, comparing someone to Pamela Anderson is a crime on a par with multiple murder, to be met with financial settlements on the scale of a footballer's divorce.
I can quite understand why these cases are in general covered so badly. No editor on earth is going to print a story about the rights and wrongs of who got given the credit for the XYZ deal and who got screwed when there is the alternative of writing a mildly salacious one about dirty old men and strip clubs. I have sat in enough wine bars with colleagues, male and female, to know that there is nothing on earth duller than a bitter story about the unfairness of a particular bank's bonus regime. But perhaps from time to time the readers could at least have it suggested to them that there is a little bit more to it than that?
