To stay relevant, legal scholarship must examine realities on the ground.
Professor Kerri L. Stone
Florida International University College of Law
Florida International University College of Law Professor and Converge for Impact Academic Affiliate Kerri L. Stone examines allegations of narcissism in workplace disputes in a recent issue of the ABA Labor & Employment Journal. In her article, Personality Disorders in Employment Discrimination Cases: The Narcissist at Work, Professor Stone considers what rising use of the term in popular discourse means for discrimination litigation.
From her study of recent caselaw, Professor Stone observes that invocations of narcissism cut in different directions. Narcissism can be an accusation levied against supervisors or other employer agents by victims of harassment and workplace bullying. At the same time, narcissism can be a retort by employers, asserted to discredit plaintiffs’ complaints and establish legitimate reasons for their termination. The latter raises the question whether plaintiffs who are demonized as narcissists may in fact have mental health conditions that are cognizable as disabilities under the ADA.
Professor Stone contends that all three uses of narcissism reveal open legal questions that courts will have to answer as increasing references to the disorder in daily conversation and popular culture filter up to courts in legal proceedings.
Professor Stone opted to publish in the ABA Labor & Employment Journal to reach those directly engaged in these cases. Her hope is to provoke reflection among practitioners who encounter, firsthand, the tension between what actually happens in the workplace and how those events are later portrayed in legal proceedings. Recalling her years in practice, Professor Stone observes, “I was always aware of this divide—the chasm between reality and its legal retelling—and how easily it could compromise a client’s position.” She believes that deeper collaboration between legal scholars and social scientists can ensure that adjudication better reflects the complexities of human behavior. “To stay relevant,” she writes, “legal scholarship must examine realities on the ground.”