The recently-filed class action against Bayer Healthcare documents some plainly actionable allegations of sexual harassment. But Suzanne Lucas is not impressed by an allegation that it violates the law that the most highly-promoted executives had to sacrifice "work-life balance" to further their careers. After all, it's not like the male executives are being treated any differently. "Perhaps people would be more inclined to take sex discrimination seriously if the complainants stuck to actual problems."
There are, of course, obvious public policy problems if employers are not allowed to reward hard work for fear of triggering some sort of disparate impact allegation. Now, perhaps, employers might reasonably choose to structure opportunity differently, insist upon work-life balance, and hope to offset the reduced productivity by being a more attractive place to work. (Given the low wages we pay, I couldn't get anyone to work for CCAF if I didn't offer work-life balance to attorneys.) But that should be a choice of the individual employer, rather than one required by law. (h/t Alkin)