Lexplug logoLexplug

Hishon v. King & Spalding

Supreme Court of United States
467 U.S. 69 (1984)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Consideration for partnership in a law firm can be a 'term, condition, or privilege of employment' for an associate, and thus Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on sex in partnership decisions.


Facts:

  • In 1972, Elizabeth Anderson Hishon accepted a position as an associate at the law firm King & Spalding.
  • Hishon alleges the firm represented that advancement to partnership after five or six years was 'a matter of course' for associates with satisfactory evaluations.
  • The firm also allegedly promised that associates were promoted to partnership 'on a fair and equal basis.'
  • Hishon alleges she relied on these representations when accepting employment.
  • At the time the suit was filed, no woman had ever served as a partner at the firm.
  • In May 1978, the partnership considered and rejected Hishon for admission.
  • In May 1979, the partners again declined to invite her to become a partner.
  • Hishon's employment was terminated on December 31, 1979, in accordance with firm policy for associates who are passed over for partnership.

Procedural Posture:

  • Elizabeth Hishon filed a charge of sex discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
  • After the EEOC issued a right-to-sue notice, Hishon sued King & Spalding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
  • The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that Title VII was inapplicable to the selection of partners by a partnership.
  • Hishon appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
  • A divided panel of the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.
  • The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.

Locked

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 a law firm's decision whether to invite an associate to become a partner constitute a 'term, condition, or privilege of employment' under Title VII, thereby subjecting the decision to the statute's prohibition on sex-based discrimination?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Burger

Yes. A law firm's consideration of an associate for partnership can be a term, condition, or privilege of employment protected by Title VII. The Court reasoned that Hishon's allegations state a cognizable claim under two theories. First, if, as alleged, the firm contracted to consider her for partnership, that promise was a 'term, condition, or privilege of employment' that Title VII protects from discriminatory application. Second, even absent an express contract, the opportunity for partnership consideration can be an established 'privilege' of employment if it is a benefit that is part and parcel of the associate's employment relationship, particularly where the firm used the prospect of partnership as a recruiting inducement. The Court rejected the firm's arguments that a change in status from 'employee' to 'employer' removes the decision from Title VII's scope and that partnership decisions have a per se exemption or are protected by the constitutional right of association, noting that 'invidious private discrimination... has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections.'


Concurring - Justice Powell

Yes. Justice Powell concurred that Hishon's complaint stated a claim under Title VII because she alleged the firm violated its promise to consider her for partnership on a fair and equal basis. However, he wrote separately to emphasize that the Court's opinion should not be read to extend Title VII's coverage to the internal management of a law firm or the relationship among existing partners. He distinguished the employer-employee relationship between a firm and its associates from the distinct relationship among partners, which involves sensitive judgmental decisions about the common conduct of their shared enterprise. Enforcing the firm's voluntarily assumed obligation to consider an associate for partnership without discrimination, he argued, did not impair any constitutional right of association.



Analysis:

This landmark decision established that promotions to partnership in professional firms are not immune from Title VII scrutiny. It prevents employers from using the distinction between an 'employee' and a 'partner' (or owner) as a shield to engage in discriminatory promotion practices against their own employees. The ruling significantly expanded the scope of Title VII's protections for professionals, particularly women and minorities in fields like law, accounting, and medicine, where partnership is a critical career milestone. By defining the opportunity for partnership as a privilege of employment, the Court ensured that the path to ownership is subject to anti-discrimination laws.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Hishon v. King & Spalding (1984)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"