GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT

This case analysis report discusses the legal and ethical issues associated with the failure of Ann Hopkins ("Hopkins") to be selected for a partnership in the international public accounting firm of Price Waterhouse ("PW") in 1982 and its aftermath. In 1984, after she failed to be selected as a partner by the firm and resigned, Hopkins sued PW in federal court. After a battle of nearly seven years in the federal courts, Judge Gerhard Gesell of the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia ordered PW to make Hopkins a partner retroactive to 1982 with back pay.

The law case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 109 S.Ct. 1775 (1989), and its sequel after it was remanded to the District Court, Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 737 F. Supp. 1202 (D.D.C. 1990), broke new ground. It represented the first time that a court ordered a private firm to grant a partnership to a plaintiff as a remedy for gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (CRA). However, the guiding opinion of the Supreme Court in the Price Waterhouse case was full of contradictions and led to confusion in the lower courts as to the type and quantum of proof of discrimination required of plaintiffs before they can prevail. The difficulties faced by plaintiffs in proving so-called mixed-motivation gender discrimination employment cases led to disillusionment in feminist circles with their prospects fo

. . .
ions. Feminists and their supporters still complain that, despite the 1991 CRA and the Hopkins decision, "Hopkins' causation standards are too burdensome on plaintiffs and, thus, misguided. The difficulty in satisfying those causal standards will dissuade many victims of sex discrimination from litigation and will cause other victims who do choose to litigate to lose." (Robert Brookins, Mixed-Motives, Title VII, and Removing Sexism from Employment: The Reality and the Rhetoric, 59 ALB. L. REV. 10 (1995)). Others, such as Ward, argue that setting the procedural barriers to sex discrimination law suits high is the only practical way to avoid overcrowding the courts with too many frivolous sex discrimination suits and to preclude "the development of unhealthy reverse discrimination." (Ward, supra, 662). Americans in general and feminists in particular have a tendency to place too much faith in the legal system to remedy deeply rooted social ills. Ethical Analysis a. Key ethical issues. The key ethical issues are whether there are any possible ethical or moral justification for the type of discrimination encountered by Hopkins in this case. If not, what are the relevant ethical and moral considerations which should be brought to b
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
University Press, Price Waterhouse, Justice Brennan, De George, Supreme Court, Title VII, Analysis Key, Pharmaceutical Pillsbury, Supreme Court's, Waterhouse Hopkins, gender discrimination, price waterhouse, business ethics, title vii, university press, andrea larson edward, larson eds, andrea larson, edward larson, university press 1997, larson edward, larson edward larson, york oxford, york oxford university, oxford university press,
Approximate Word count = 5356
Approximate Pages = 21 (250 words per page)

More Essays on GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT