Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch disputed a story this week alleging he told a group of law students that women manipulate maternity leave, and a document that appears to be a copy of his teacher’s manual seems to back up his version of events.
Judge Gorsuch said Tuesday he never told his University of Colorado Law School class he personally believes women exploit maternity leave policies. Rather, he added during his confirmation hearing, the issue was posed to students as a hypothetical question based on materials provided in his teacher’s manual.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., asked the federal judge: “Did you ask your students in class that day if they knew of a woman who had taken maternity benefits from a company and then left the company after having a baby?”
President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee proceeded to explain that the way he ran his classroom has been misrepresented in the press.
“In his answer, Gorsuch went out of his way to express deep empathy for women facing undue obstacles from employers, citing his own mother’s experiences and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as examples,” the Washington Examiner’s Emily Jashinsky recounted. “He noted it is ‘disturbing’ for him to see how many young women in his classes every year reported being asked inappropriate questions about family planning by employers.”
This moment during Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing came in reference to a claim made by Jennifer R. Sisk, a 2016 graduate of the University of Colorado Law School and former Democratic operative.
She alleged in a letter published Sunday evening that Gorsuch once asked students to “raise their hands if they knew of a female who had used a company to get maternity benefits and then left right after having the baby.”
He then said, “‘many’ women use their companies for maternity benefits and then leave the company after the baby is born,” she wrote, adding, “Judge Gorsuch focused on women having babies, not men expanding their families. … Judge Gorsuch continued to steer the conversation back to the exclusive issue of females having children.”
“Judge Gorsuch outlined how law firms, and companies in general, had to ask female interviewees about pregnancy plans in order to protect the company. At least one student countered that an employer could not ask questions about an interviewee’s pregnancy plans. However, Judge Gorsuch informed the class that that was wrong,” Sisk wrote.
The press was not far behind her, as several newsrooms soon reported the content of her letter.
“Former Student: Gorsuch Said Employers Should Ask Women If They Plan To Have Children,” NPR reported.
NBC News said in its own headline, “Gorsuch Told Class ‘Many’ Women Manipulate Maternity Leave: Student.”
“SCOTUS Nominee Gorsuch: Women ‘Manipulate’ Maternity Leave,” NY Mag reported.
The New York Daily News followed with, “SCOTUS nominee Gorsuch said women ‘manipulate’ maternity leave.”
“Neil Gorsuch Allegedly Said Women Abuse Maternity Leave. That’s A Big Problem,” blared a Huffington Post headline.
Slate, of course, followed with this bit of chin-stroking: “Neil Gorsuch Thinks Employers Should Ask Women About Pregnancy Plans, Former Student Claims.”
“Neil Gorsuch Thinks Employers Should Ask Women About Pregnancy Plans, Former Student Claims,” reported Mic.
It goes on like that for quite some time.
As those reports were being published, however, a second University of Colorado Law School alumnus emerged to dispute Sisk’s version of events.
“It is clear that my classmate and I have a different account of what happened in class. But had Judge Gorsuch truly made the statements described in the letter, I would remember — the statements would have greatly upset me,” William Hauptman said in a letter addressed to Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. “And I would not be writing you in support of the judge if I felt he would not treat all people with equal dignity.”
There may be another major point in the Supreme Court nominee’s favor.
A document that appears to be Gorsuch’s teacher’s manual, which was obtained by the Washington Examiner, does indeed include a very specific hypothetical about maternity leave and “improper” interview questions.
A spokeswoman for the University of Colorado Law School did not dispute the document’s authenticity.
The alleged teacher’s manual, which the Examiner confirmed aligns exactly with the textbook used in Gorsuch’s class, includes the following passages:
Teaching note: Cornell Law School has posted a list of improper questions that law firm interviewers might ask, and some possible responses by law students.
What will you say?
Some firms worry about investing resources for a year or two to train a new lawyer who will then resign to have children. In our society, women leave work more often than men for family reasons, so a firm that declines to hire someone who is planning to raise children ends up discriminating against women.
The document goes on to list the possible interviewee responses:
(The truth): Yes, I do plan to have children in a few years, so I would expect to work for your firm for only three or four years. During those years I’ll do my very best work for the firm).
(Falsely): No, I’m eager to establish myself in my legal career before even thinking about a family.
(Evasively, and perhaps subtly making the interviewer realize that she is going down a road that could get her in trouble and should back off): I don’t really know. Why do you ask?
The document doesn’t disprove Sisk’s version of events, but it does appear to show Gorsuch had materials dealing with the very specific issue of maternity leave, and how interviewees should handle likely inappropriate interview questions.
To believe Sisk, one would have to discard contradicting claims from University of Colorado Law School graduates. One would also have to discard testimony from 11 former female clerks, who said Gorsuch “treats and values women fairly and without preference or prejudice based on their gender.”
One would also have to believe the federal judge discarded his teaching materials that semester and set off down a weird, separate path of claiming women exploit maternity leave policies.
It’s possible, but it doesn’t make much sense.
