Ann Hopkins

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 explained to him that she already got up at five or six in the morning, had a lot to do, and didn 't have the time. Beyer answered that Sandy Kinsey, another woman in OGS, managed to find the time." (Ann Hopkins (A), p. 9) Apparently, Hopkin 's hairstyle at that time was too masculine.
The following are examples of gender stereotyping in the case as documented in Exhibit 1: Summary of Short Form and Long Form Comments:
Partner MacVeagh: "As a person she has matured from a tough-talking somewhat masculine hard-nosed mgr to an authoritative, formidable, but more appealing lady ptr candidate. She should now become a lady ptr." (Exhibit 1)
Partner Powell: "She is however somewhat lacking in the congeniality dept." (Exhibit 1)
Partner Hoffman: "Suggest a course at charm school before she is considered for admission." (Exhibit 1)
If gender discrimination were not evident, then the partners would not have used stereotypical phrases such as congeniality; which brings to mind a beauty pageant, and charm school; which women used to attend in order to practice their feminine skills. Partner MacVeagh 's comments lead me to believe that he thinks that tough talking and hard nosed are masculine traits. If these comments are representative of an average Price Waterhouse partner, then the average partner perceives a difference between the way men and women are supposed to present themselves regardless of ability. Otherwise, why would Partner MacVeagh feel the need to differentiate and state "She should now become a lady ptr." (Exhibit 1). If discrimination were not occurring, "lady" would have been excluded from that statement.
Conclusions
It would be surprising that Price Waterhouse would have made the same promotion decision if gender discrimination were not part of the equation. There are many comments within the case study that reflect the Ann was being judged based on a gender stereotype that she was not fitting with. My conclusion is that Price Waterhouse did in fact discriminate by judging Ann Hopkins by the traditional gender stereotypes and not on merit. She should have been made a partner in the firm.

Ethical Analysis Model
Ethical Issues
The ethical issue evident in this case is discrimination. Velasquez states "First, it is a decision against one or more employees (or prospective employees) that is not based on individual merit, such as the ability to perform a given job, seniority, or other morally legitimate qualifications. Second, the decision derives solely or in part from racial or sexual prejudice, false stereotypes, or some other kind of morally unjustified attitude against members of the class to which the employee belongs. Third, the decision (or set of decisions) has a harmful or negative impact on the interests of the employees, perhaps costing them jobs, promotions or better pay." (389).
Evidence of the Ethical Issues Ann Hopkins was discriminated against not on merit but based on the perception that she did not conform to a sexual stereotype. 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) The decision made cost her an earned promotion.
What assumptions does the student have to make in order to examine and evaluate the ethical questions?
The assumption that needs to be made in analyzing the case are that discriminating against an individual based on a deviation from the accepted stereotype for their gender is morally unacceptable.
Ethically, what should be done? Price Waterhouse should educate its partners and employees about accepted work practices and should institute diversity training in order to educate members that stereotyping is unacceptable. Ann Hopkins should be admitted as partner to the firm and welcomed as a valuable addition to senior management. Works Cited
Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2 July 1964. U.S. Department of State. 12 Sept. 2004. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm
Civil Rights Act of 1991. 8 March 1991. U.S. Department of State. 12 Sept. 2004. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civil91.htm
Harvard Business School. Ann Hopkins (A). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing,
1991.
Velasquez, Manuel G. (2002) Owen, C., (5th Ed.). Business Ethics Concepts and Cases. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Cited: Civil Rights Act of 1964. 2 July 1964. U.S. Department of State. 12 Sept. 2004. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm Civil Rights Act of 1991. 8 March 1991. U.S. Department of State. 12 Sept. 2004. http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civil91.htm Harvard Business School. Ann Hopkins (A). Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing, 1991. Velasquez, Manuel G. (2002) Owen, C., (5th Ed.). Business Ethics Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall