Legal Analysis Model

Legal Analysis Model

The relevant facts

According to the case, Ann Hopkins had worked successfully for Price Waterhouse since 1978 and was "nominated for partnership at Price Waterhouse in 1982." (p. 1) Out of 88 candidates she was the only woman. In the admissions process, forms were sent out to all Price Waterhouse partners of whom there were 662. These partners then submitted their comments about the candidates. . Only "thirty-two partners, all male, responded about Hopkins." (p. 5) The forms were then tabulated to achieve a statistical rating in order to determine if the candidate should be admitted to the partnership. Of the 88 candidates "Price Waterhouse offered partnerships to 47 of them, rejected 21, and placed 20, including Hopkins, on hold." (p. 1) "Some candidates had been held because of concerns about their interpersonal skills." "the Policy Board takes evaluations or a negative reaction on this basis very seriously," even if the negative comments on short form evaluations were based upon less contact with the candidate than glowing reports on long forms evaluations based on more extensive contact. The policy board had however, recommended and elected two candidates "criticized for their interpersonal skills". (p. 4) Approximately 1% of the 662 partners were women. Price Waterhouse "gave two explanations for this. One was the relatively recent entry of large numbers of women into accounting and related fields. The other was the success of clients and rival accounting firms in hiring away female potential partners." (p. 4). After hearing that it was unlikely that she would ever make partner, Ann Hopkins decided to "initiate a lawsuit charging Price Waterhouse with sex discrimination". She had been a valuable and productive member of the organization and it appears that she was denied admission as a partner since she did not fit the feminine stereotype.

Critical issues - Legal

There is evidence of Intentional Discrimination by Price Waterhouse and its employees based on sexual stereotype.

Appropriate legal rules

According to Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, (2001) "the most important statue eliminating discriminatory employment practices, however, is the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act o 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991." The appropriation section of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII is Sec. 703. (a), which states that "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex or national origin".

The following section of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 as seen on the website "usinfo.state.gov" is relevant to this case:

"SEC. 5. CLARIFYING PROHIBITION AGAINST IMPERMISSIBLE CONSIDERATION OF RECE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN EMPLOYMNET PRACTICES.

(a) IN GENERAL.--Section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U>S>C> 2000e-2) (as amended by section 4) is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

""(1) DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICE NEED NOT BE SOLE CONTRIBUTING FACTOR.--

Except as otherwise provided in this title, an unlawful employment practice is established when the complaining party demonstrates that race, color, religion, sex, or national origin was a contributing factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also contributed to such practice.

". (b) ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.--Section 706(g) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)) is amended by inserting before the period in the last sentence the following: "or, in a case where a violation is established under section 703(1), if the respondent establishes that it would have taken the same action in the absence of any discrimination. In any case in which a violation is established under section 703(1), damages may be awarded only for injury that is attributable to the unlawful employment practice.""

Observations - connection between the facts and the rules

Hopkins was nominated for partner because "OGS praised her "outstanding performance," said it was "virtually at partnership level," and underlined her "key role" in connection with a large State Department project. No other 1982 candidate's record for securing major contracts was comparable." (Ann Hopkins (A), p. 1) Additionally, "Hopkins believed that she was "the only candidate who was not admitted to Price Waterhouse--initially or after being put on hold--who was criticized solely for deficiencies in interpersonal skills." Similarly situated men, she said were admitted." (Ann Hopkins (A), p. 12). There is evidence in the case that Ann was judged based not on merit but the stereotypical views of behavior and appearance attributed to men and women. The majority of the negative comments in the case regarding Hopkins were related to her behavior and appearance. She was evaluated not on her own merits but in how she compared to the typical female. Many of the comments in the exhibits reflect that others in the organization viewed Ann as exhibiting stereotypical masculine attributes such as the use of profanity, toughness, and machismo. There is also the indication that she exhibited an undesirable appearance for a woman. These comments are included below:

In the case Krulwich indicates "Ann has a clearly different personality, outspoken, diamond in the rough. Many male partners are worse than Ann (language and tough personality)." (Exhibit 2) Apparently no female partners are worse than Ann is in regards to language and personality.

Kelly indicated that "Five minutes into discussion client probably forgets she's macho." (Exhibit 2). Macho is typically associated with male behavior and it is unusual to hear a female described this way.

She was "advised her to use less profanity and to alter her voice tone, to "look more toward appearing more feminine," to wear more jewelry and make-up, to style her hair, and to dress less in 'power blues.'" (Ann Hopkins (A) p. 11)

Another example of the gender stereotype is "When Beyer suggested that she style her hair, Hopkins