‘The Pence Policy’

RICHMOND, Va. — A politician’s policy of avoiding one-on-one meals with female associates sparked an outcry among many employment lawyers and cultural commentators, but the practice espoused by Vice President Mike Pence may be more widespread than many professionals expected.

Labor and employment attorneys expressed surprise at a recent poll — conducted for the New York Times — showing as many as a quarter of the respondents thought private work meetings with colleagues of the opposite sex are inappropriate.

Pence raised eyebrows when it was disclosed that he had a personal policy never to dine alone with a woman other than his wife.

While lawyers for both employees and employers agreed the practice probably happens, they were taken aback by the high poll numbers.

None of the lawyers contacted had ever heard of any such policy being voiced as part of official company doctrine or training. All agreed it would have a discriminatory effect on female staffers excluded from the decision-making and mentoring process that sometimes takes place over food.

A covert practice

“I think it goes on all the time,” said Roanoke attorney Linda D. Frith, who represents employers. Business owners may not voice their policy out loud because they have become sensitive to the ramifications, Frith said.

William M. Furr, who heads a law firm’s labor and employment group in Norfolk, agrees that some office bosses avoid private meals with employees of the opposite sex.

“I have heard small businessmen say that before,” Furr said. “In 29 years of practice, I have never heard a sophisticated business owner say they had such a policy.”

Policies that put women outside the leadership circle are nothing new, said Thomas E. Strelka of Roanoke, who represents employees.

“In the workplace, women have been ostracized because they’re women since there were women in the workplace,” Strelka said. “I have clients who tell me, ‘I can’t break into this boys’ club.’”

Bad policy

Lawyers on both sides of the employment relationship agreed the policy has no place in any office.

“I honestly don’t know of a single executive who has ever adopted this rule,” said Vienna, Va., labor lawyer Edward Lee Isler, who represents employers. “I don’t think it’s practical or wise or fair in today’s world.”

“It’s about corporate culture,” said Richmond’s Harris D. Butler III, an employees’ lawyer. “When you have one rule for one set of employees and another rule for another set of employees, it can get you into trouble.”

“I think it’s a slippery slope type thing. It’s a dangerous place for an employer to be,” Butler added.

“I think it would be risky to have such a policy,” Furr said. “You would have female subordinates who would complain they were not being treated equally with the male subordinates.”

Furr’s advice to clients is to never have different rules for men and women.

“Treat everyone equally, number one. And — obviously — don’t sexually harass your employees,” Furr counseled.

Strelka said the Pence rule would provide potent fuel for a discrimination lawsuit.

The Pence policy would mean that Pence could never have a woman assistant or a woman campaign manager, Strelka said. In an office, the person doing the hiring would hesitate to even consider a female candidate.

“That automatically puts women on an unbalanced playing field when it comes to being hired,” Strelka said. “It is de facto discrimination. The effect of the implementation of that rule is clearly discriminatory,” he said.

“That’s easy ammunition for me. I could hammer on it for days,” Strelka said.

Other practices raise concern

A male boss who was reluctant to dine alone with a female subordinate would likely have other discriminatory practices, Frith said.

At a male-dominated law firm for instance, senior attorneys might hesitate to take female associates out-of-town for trials or depositions.

“You can definitely build a case there,” Frith said. “They can really show discrimination.”

Alcohol often leads to trouble, said Isler. It adds to the image of improper conduct and can pave the way to inappropriate behavior, he said.

His law partner, R. Mark Dare, agreed: “If I were forced to have a rule, it would be no alcohol,” he said. “That seems to be the most common factor in cases of poor judgment.”

Dare said he has had clients — employers — who had “no alcohol” policies which were routinely ignored at company receptions and business dinners.

“If I could wave a magic wand at one issue, that would be it,” he said. “But it’s not realistic,” he added.

Training preferred to rules

Lawyers agreed that it would make little sense to try to craft a rule to ensure equal access to superiors’ lunchtime business discussions. People will eat, and they will talk business.

“Frankly, it happens every day,” Furr said. “If you don’t have one-on-one meetings with your mentees or your employees, how are you going to bring them along in the workplace?”

“We all know a lot of professional discussions, business conversations take place at lunch,” said Strelka. “You talk about work. You have to be productive. You have to get things done.”

“I just think a good policy for a workplace is that equal opportunity extends beyond the doors of the workplace,” Strelka said.

Training on equal opportunity is superior to having a “silly rule,” Strelka said.

Isler agreed.

“As a senior executive, you do want to ensure you’re giving equal access on an equal basis.”

“It’s never going to be easy. There are always some people you’re going to have a greater affinity with,” he added.