Ann B. Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse
1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 20852, 287 U.S. App. D.C. 173, 920 F.2d 967 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 grants federal courts the authority to order admission to a partnership as an equitable remedy to make a victim of employment discrimination whole.
Facts:
- Ann Hopkins joined the accounting firm Price Waterhouse in 1978 and became a successful senior manager.
- In 1982, Hopkins was proposed for partnership.
- During the partnership review process, partners submitted written evaluations. While many praised her performance and ability to secure major contracts, several criticized her 'interpersonal skills.'
- Some of the negative comments were explicitly based on sex stereotypes, describing Hopkins as 'macho' and suggesting she 'take a course at charm school.'
- Partners criticized her use of profanity, with one supporter noting the objection was only 'because it's a lady using foul language.'
- The head partner of her office, in advising her how to improve her chances for the next year, told Hopkins to 'walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.'
- In March 1983, Price Waterhouse's Policy Board decided to 'hold' Hopkins's candidacy for reconsideration the following year rather than admit her to the partnership.
- The following year, Hopkins was not re-proposed for partnership, and she subsequently resigned.
Procedural Posture:
- Ann B. Hopkins sued Price Waterhouse in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII.
- The District Court (trial court) found that Price Waterhouse had illegally discriminated against Hopkins based on sex stereotyping.
- The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed the finding of liability.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that sex stereotyping is a form of sex discrimination, but reversed on the standard of proof, ruling that an employer in a mixed-motive case need only prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that it would have made the same decision absent discrimination.
- The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower courts for reconsideration under this new evidentiary standard.
- On remand, the District Court found Price Waterhouse had not met its burden and ordered the firm to admit Hopkins to the partnership and award her back pay.
- Price Waterhouse appealed the District Court's remedial order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 authorize a court to order admission to a partnership as a remedy for an employee who was discriminatorily denied that promotion?
Opinions:
Majority - Edwards
Yes. Title VII grants courts broad remedial power to make victims of discrimination whole, which includes the authority to order admission to a partnership. The statute's plain language authorizing 'any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate,' its legislative history, and Supreme Court precedent in Hishon v. King & Spalding all support this conclusion. Hishon established that partnership consideration is a privilege of employment protected by Title VII, and it would be inconceivable to recognize a right against discriminatory denial of partnership without providing an effective remedy. The court rejected Price Waterhouse's arguments based on freedom of association and common law contract principles, holding that the compelling national interest in eradicating discrimination and the explicit remedial scheme of Title VII override these concerns. The court also affirmed the district court’s factual finding that Price Waterhouse failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have denied Hopkins partnership absent the discriminatory stereotyping.
Concurring - Henderson
Yes. The court is compelled to affirm the district court's decision due to the narrow 'clear error' standard of review, though the finding of discrimination is highly questionable given the overwhelming evidence of Hopkins's personality deficiencies. While Title VII does permit ordering partnership as a remedy, this extraordinary measure should be used with great caution because it intrudes on the special relationship of trust and cooperation among partners. However, in this specific case, given Price Waterhouse's large and impersonal nature and the lack of a better alternative remedy like front pay, it cannot be said that the district court abused its discretion in ordering Hopkins's admission to the partnership.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the 'make whole' remedial power of courts under Title VII, confirming their authority to grant remedies that fundamentally alter the structure of a private business, such as forcing the admission of a new partner. It establishes a powerful precedent for employees in professional services firms, demonstrating that discriminatory promotion decisions can result in court-ordered advancement, not just monetary damages. The ruling signals that the unique nature of a partnership does not shield it from the full force of Title VII remedies when its selection process is tainted by unlawful discrimination against an employee.
