Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 251 (1989).

21 Equal Opportunity Review, 'News, 'Limited Progress for Top Women say Hansard Society', EOR No.67 May/June 1998, page 7. 22 Labour Research (January 1999); Price Waterhouse Corporate Register, 'Women at the Top update' (Hansard Society). 23 Article 2 (1) of the Equal Treatment Directive 76/207 reads ' For the purposes

We'll hear argument next in No. 87-1167, Price Waterhouse v. Ann B. Hopkins.

Hopkins came to Price Waterhouse on a strong recommendation from Touch Ross. Price Waterhouse consisted of three departments. Accounting and auditing, tax services and management advisory services. Hopkins came on as a manager in the Management Advisory Services (MAS) department. The firm was a professional partnership whose clients included many Fortune 500 companies. During the timeframe of this case Price Waterhouse had 662 partners across 90 U.S.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 234-35 (1989).

1. What ethical problems do you see with the Price Waterhouse partnership

Mary Anne Case, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 66 McGinley, note 26, at 770-72; Reed, note 25; Jennifer S. Hendricks, , 103 discussing how a separate ENDA may harm intersectional plaintiffs); Jill D. Weinberg, , 44 specifically discussing the potential consequences of a proposed ENDA variant lacking gender-identity protections); William C. Sung, Note, , 84 discussing the greater political feasibility of addressing sexual orientation discrimination through existing Title VII provisions as opposed to passing a new statute)should note an important recent aspect of the debate over ENDA, if only to cabin it—Case and Reed, in particular, see the religious exemptions in some versions of ENDA as a dangerous retreat from the protections available under , which are limited only by narrow religious exemptions to Title VII most recently delineated in , 132 S. Ct. 694 (2012). Case, , at 1375-77; Reed, note 25, at 309-14. The debate over the normative and political desirability of these sorts of protections is a vital one, but it is one that falls beyond the scope of this Note.

Ann Hopkins worked at Price Waterhouse for five years before being proposed for partnership. Although Hopkins secured a $25 million government contract

The district court held that Price Waterhouse had discriminated, but Hopkins was not entitled to full damages because her poor interpersonal skills also contributed to the board’s decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, but held that the employer is not liable if it can show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have made the same employment decision in the absence of discrimination.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins - Case Brief - Law Essays …

Under this Court's Title VII decisions, including the ones that have been discussed in the last hour, those findings should have resulted in a judgment for Price Waterhouse.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins | The Law School Guys

Ann Hopkins worked at Price Waterhouse for five years before being proposed for partnership. Although Hopkins secured a $25 million government contract that year, the board decided to put her proposal on hold for the following year. The next year, when Price Waterhouse refused to re-propose her for partnership, she sued under Title VII for sex discrimination. Of 622 partners at Price Waterhouse, 7 were women. The partnership selection process relied on recommendations by other partners, some of whom openly opposed women in advanced positions, but Hopkins also had problems with being overly aggressive and not getting along with office staff.