BUS623_Week 1_Assignment

docx

School

Ashford University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

623

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SargentWolfPerson734

1 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins The University of Arizona Global Campus BUS623: Human Capital Management Using Applied Psychology Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins Laws serve a crucial role in shaping accepted and unaccepted actions in society. Although most laws come from the constitution, statutes, or regulations, not all emerge this

2 way. Case laws are quintessential because they emanate from judicial decisions of previous cases. Therefore, case laws are legal precedents that guide contemporary practices. One such precedent in employment discrimination issues is Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, which provides the legal basis for solving sex discrimination cases not identified clearly under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (CRA). The research paper discusses Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, its associated discrimination, and how its findings have been applied to today's practices. The Discrimination the Case Exemplifies The case involved prescriptive sex discrimination, which refers to treating an individual unfavorably due to exhibiting behaviors or traits that do not conform to traditional gender expectations and gender role beliefs. In other words, the case dealt with gender stereotyping in the workplace (Herz, 2014). A gender stereotype describes a generalized view or preconception regarding the attributes, characteristics, or roles women and men should depict or occupy (Herz, 2014). Although Title VII remains the most significant antidiscrimination law, it does not clarify whether its prohibition against discrimination based on sex extends to gender stereotyping (Herz, 2014). This vagueness could allow employers to perpetrate legal discrimination, which can exist if the law is silent about a particular issue (Spiggle, 2023). Summary of the Case Background Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins is a 1989 employment dispute case that involved Price Waterhouse, an accounting firm, and its employee, Ann Hopkins. After securing the project manager role at Price Waterhouse in 1978, Hopkins worked hard for several years, succeeding in various projects as she sometimes outperformed her male colleagues (Bachman, 2018). Regardless, the company refused to accept Hopkins' application for a

3 partnership twice despite having only seven out of the 622 partners at the time (Bachman, 2018). When Price Waterhouse first postponed her application for a year, Hopkins approached her supervisor to inquire about the reasons for the postponement, and she was told that the company could not accept her non-feminine characteristics, including being aggressive, foul-mouthed and demanding (Bachman, 2018). Also, many male employees indicated they would not take Hopkins as their partner since she talked, dressed, and walked like a man (Bachman, 2018). Thus, the company needed Hopkins to exhibit stereotypically feminine attributes. When the company rejected Hopkins' bid for partnership in the second year, she resigned and sued it based on Title VII of the CRA, which prohibits discrimination based on protected social characteristics, including sex. The lower courts ruled in favor of Hopkins, prompting the company to request a hearing from the Supreme Court (SC). Findings The case primarily involved determining the standard for determining liability under Title VII (Herz, 2014). The defendant argued that employers could only violate this law if they deliberately considered an employee's social characteristics in making employment decisions. Thus, according to this party, employers could avoid liability by demonstrating that the outcome could remain the same without the discriminatory aspects. On the other hand, the plaintiff (Hopkins) argued that identifying discriminatory reasons in a decision- making process was enough to hold an employer liable (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989). The court found Price Waterhouse liable for perpetrating sex discrimination against Hopkins since it could not demonstrate that the decision would have remained the same without considering her sex. The Outcome The most significant outcome of this case was the expansion of the term "sex" used in Title VII to include gender stereotypes (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 1989). Thus, instead of

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

4 using the traditional notion of gender discrimination that includes mistreating employees due to belonging to one of the heterosexual genders, the ruling broadly indicated that employers could not discriminate against individuals who display unusual gender characteristics (Bachman, 2018). Therefore, this ruling meant that employers could not discriminate against workers due to belonging to unconventional genders, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ). How the Findings from the Case Are Applied to Today's Practices The Price Waterhouse ruling has provided directions to various organs involved in preventing discrimination or handling its cases. In 1991, Congress utilized this ruling, although implicitly, to clarify the confusion that surrounded sex discrimination by explaining it as unlawful even where other factors influence adverse employment action (Goodsell, 2008). Also, in the absence of explicit statutory protection covering people with unconventional gender characteristics, many courts use the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case to argue that employers should not discriminate against gender-deviant LGBT employers (Herz, 2014). However, courts have interpreted the scope of gender stereotyping differently. In some cases, they require plaintiffs to prove how prescriptive stereotypes harm members of one sex (Herz, 2014). Therefore, these courts interpret the ruling in the narrow sense described in Title VII, covering heterosexual genders only. Under this perspective, courts interpret Price Waterhouse as affecting women only since the traditional perception of sex discrimination considers women the most vulnerable to sexist beliefs. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons that made Hopkins win the case was demonstrating the tradition of discriminating against women at Price Waterhouse (Herz, 2014). However, the ruling's significance is in including gender stereotyping as part of sex discrimination. Other courts have interpreted the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case in a broad sense by arguing that gender stereotyping affects both men and women, although the latter faces a

5 higher risk (Herz, 2014). This interpretation is more relevant to 21st-century workplaces where a broader view of gender exists. Indeed, due to clarifying the illegality of sex stereotyping, the case has become the primary tool that several stakeholders, including equality agencies, employees, and human rights groups, apply to protect LGBT rights. In 2018, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Harris Funeral Homes for perpetrating gender stereotyping after it fired a transgender worker who allegedly violated its sex-specific dress code (Seligman, n.d.). This case involves Aimee Stephens, who had presented herself to the funeral home as a male until 2013. However, in 2013, Stephens informed the organization that she planned to undergo gender reassignment surgery to become a female (Seligman, n.d.). Thus, she requested to be allowed to dress in female attire worn by other female workers. The company fired her as soon as it received the notice, prompting the EEOC to intervene in taking the matter to court. When the case reached the SC, judges ruled that Title VII covers discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity (Seligman, n.d.). Therefore, although the court did not cite Price Waterhouse directly, it utilized the broader interpretation of sex discrimination advanced by the precedent. Overall, Bachman (2018) indicates that courts have cited this case about 6,000 times when resolving similar cases. Conclusion According to the discussion, the Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins case dramatically altered the interpretation of sex discrimination. Before this precedent, Title VII did not have elaborations on whether sex discrimination encompassed gender stereotyping. Employers

6 could exploit this void to discriminate against women in various employment matters, including promotions. Fortunately, the SC ruled that employers perpetrate sex discrimination if they consider gender stereotypes in making employment decisions. Therefore, this ruling has been significant in 21st-century employment matters since discrimination against LGBT has become a significant issue. Specifically, the ruling is the primary framework that courts have recently applied to identify employers' discrimination against LGBT people. References Bachman, E. (2018, July 19). An appreciation of Ann Hopkins, a glass ceiling pioneer. Forbes . https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericbachman/2018/07/19/an-appreciation-of- ann-hopkins-a-glass-ceiling-pioneer/?sh=350f831c5681

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

7 Goodsell, E. E. (2008). Toward real workplace equality: nonsubordination and Title VII sex- stereotyping jurisprudence. Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society , 23 (1), 41- 64. Herz, Z. R. (2014). Price's progress: Sex stereotyping and its potential for antidiscrimination law. Yale Law Journal , 124 , 396-446. Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/228/ Seligman, D. (n.d.). Interpreting Title VII's "sex" inclusively: a proposal of how and why to interpret Title VII to protect transgender employees. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/gender-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 20/2019/06/A-Proposal-of-How-and-Why-to-Interpret-Title-VII-to-Protect- Transgender-Employees.pdf Spiggle, T. (2023). Discrimination: how and why can it be legal? Retrieved January 19 2024, from https://spigglelaw.com/discrimination-how-and-why-can-it-be-legal/

BUS623_Week 1_Assignment

Related Documents