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

For further reading of the case with more facts: See pgs. 459-460

Issue: Whether an accounting firm's decision to deny partnership to a female candidate who did not meet their expectations of what a female partner should be violates Title VII.

Facts: Ann Hopkins, a female associate who was refused admission as a partner in an accounting firm brought a gender discrimination action against the firm. She was told that despite her outstanding performance and competence, she was "macho," should "take a course at charm school," and that she should "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled and wear jewelry."

Decision: The U.S. Supreme Court held that the evidence was sufficient to show that illegal gender stereotyping played a part in evaluating Hopkins' candidacy, which violated Title VII.

Questions:

1. What were Price Waterhouse's fatal flaws, what did they do wrong? Explain.
2. Are you surprised by the outcome? Explain.
3. Are stereotypes usually discriminatory? Explain.
4. Does Hopkins' treatment here make good business sense? Explain.
5. What policies or procedures would you put into place to avoid such issues in the future?