Ann Hopkins Case Summary

Ann Hopkins worked at Price Waterhouse 's Office of Government Services in Washington, D.C., for five years before she was proposed candidacy for partnership in 1982. She was neither offered nor denied admission to the partnership that year; instead, her candidacy was held for reconsideration the following year. When the partners in her office later refused her proposed partnership, she quit and sued Price Waterhouse under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 charging that the firm had discriminated against her on the basis of sex in its decisions regarding partnership. As part of the partnership process, the other partners in the firm were invited to submit written comments on the employee being considered for partnership. There were clear signs, though, that some of the partners reacted negatively to Hopkins 's personality because she was a woman. One partner described her as “macho”; another suggested that she “overcompensated for being a woman”; a third advised her to take “a course at charm school.”(Lexis, 490 U.S. 228 U.S. Sup. Ct., 1989) Several partners criticized her use of
Many businesses are following the utilitarian view which states, “to ensure that jobs are maximally productive, they must be assigned to those individuals whose skills and personality traits qualify them as the most competent for the job.” (Velasquez p.320) What this means is that employers exclude such things as race and gender when making decisions regarding their employees. By adopting this philosophy employers demonstrate the principle of equality, that, “individuals who are equal in all respects relevant to [job description and performance] should be treated equally even of they are dissimilar in other, non-relevant respects.” (Velasquez p.322) In this aspect the effect is different it is not discrimination, rather a relevant respect for treating people