Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, "A Bold Woman's Lesson About The Meritocracy Myth", https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/symposium-the-moral-arc-bends-toward-justice-toward-an-intersectional-legal-analysis-of-lgbtq-rights/, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Price_Waterhouse_v._Hopkins&oldid=968844023, United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court, United States employment discrimination case law, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. . As discussed in an earlier post, Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer to “discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual … because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. 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.” Id. The next year, when Price Waterhouse refused to re-propose her for partnership, she sued under Title VII for sex discrimination. According to SCOTUSblog: [The] ruling was not only a victory for LGBTQ workers. If you would like to request a consultation with attorney Tim Coffield, you may call 1-434-218-3133 or send an email to info@coffieldlaw.com. Isabell Slack’s employer paid no attention to her particular characteristics, while Ann Hopkins’s … 3d 730, 746 (E.D. An important issue in this case concerned the appropriate standard for finding liability in Title VII cases. A woman who took her gender stereotyping case to the U.S. Supreme Court after twice being denied a partnership at Price Waterhouse has died at 74. The Court observed that there were “clear signs” that some of the partners reacted negatively to Hopkins’ personality because she was a woman. Id. Both “[s]upporters and opponents of her candidacy … indicated that she was sometimes overly aggressive, unduly harsh, difficult to work with and impatient with staff.”. § 2000e-2(m). Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court on the issues of prescriptive sex discrimination and employer liability for sex discrimination. Hopkins argued that the employer's use of discriminatory reasons in its decision-making process should be sufficient to trigger liability. The information you obtain at this site is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and attorney Tim Coffield or Coffield PLC. A career firefighter may be told in her job interview that, if hired, she will "inevitably" become bisexual because no women firefighters are straight. Despite stellar qualifications, Hopkins’s application for partnership at Price Waterhouse … Va. 2018) (discussing the gender-stereotyping theory of, , collecting cases, and concluding claims of discrimination on the basis of failure to conform with gender-based societal expectations are “per se sex discrimination under Title VII[. kind of evidence necessary to link gender stereotyping with a finding of employment discrimination depends largely on which federal circuit hears her case. As the American Psychological Association explained in its amicus brief in Price Waterhouse, sex stereotyping can create discriminatory consequences for stereotyped groups — for example, where they shape perceptions about women’s typical and acceptable roles in society. Of the 662 partners at the firm at that time, only seven were women. Another supporter explained that Hopkins “ha[d] matured from a tough-talking somewhat masculine hard-nosed mgr to an authoritative, formidable, but much more appealing lady ptr candidate.”, . Co., 350 F.3d 1061, 1072 (9th Cir. . 5, 2010) (complaints that the female plaintiff had an “abrasive personality” and was “condescending” could reflect a “gender bias: that women do not have leadership and motivational skills, [and] cannot manage aggressively[.]”). , “the Supreme Court has expressly recognized that claims based on an individual’s failure to conform to societal expectations based on that person’s gender constitute discrimination ‘because of sex’ under Title VII[. Both the district court and the federal circuit court of appeals ruled in Hopkins's favor, but courts disagreed about the level of proof (preponderance of evidence versus clear and convincing evidence) that employers needed to provide to support their argument that they would have made the same decision absent their sex discrimination. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,1 the Supreme Court at-tempted to clarify the law on gender stereotyping in employ-ment decisions. ). Anderson v. Mt. *By Appointment Only. In fact, five federal appeals courts have explicitly ruled that transgender people are protected against discrimination under federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination, as have dozens of … at 251 (“[W]e are beyond the day when an employer could evaluate employees by assuming or insisting that they matched the stereotype associated with their group.”). When women succeed in jobs that have historically been held by men, they are often labeled as "gay" or "dykes" as a form of harassment, regardless of whether the assertions about their sexual orientation are true. 2016) (Davis, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted). “[A]n unlawful employment practice is established when … sex … was a motivating factor for any employment practice, even though other factors also motivated the practice.”. For example, partners evaluating her work had counseled her to improve her relations with staff members. Id at 235, 250-53. See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 243 (1989). 606, 606–07 (4th Cir. Price Waterhouse denied Hopkins partnership, in essence, because of her aggressive personality, which sometimes bordered on abrasiveness. In Nichols v. Azteca Rest. Once a Title VII plaintiff proves that gender played a motivating part in an employment decision, the defendant can only avoid a finding of liability by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision regardless of the plaintiff's gender. Contacting Coffield PLC or Tim does not create an attorney-client relationship. The employee, Ann Hopkins, sued her former employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse. 7 This was stereotype, too, but of a vastly different form. 6 Ann Hopkins was repeatedly told by her employers to dress, speak, and act in a manner more appropriate to her sex. If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Although the gender stereotype theory under Title VII that had been established in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkinshas been applied somewhat differently among the circuits through the years and is seldom successful because of its complexity, it is very clear that the courts still recognize the theory as a possible cause of action under Title VII. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2006. For some additional examples of stereotyping discrimination in the trial courts, ., 302 F. Supp. The Supreme Court decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) made it clear that Title VII not only protects employees from being treated differently based on their sex. Perhaps the most famous case in American transgender law--the US Supreme Court's sex stereotyping decision, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (in which, ironically, there are no transgender characters). If you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your attorney. Id. This case is important in the context of developing and understanding Title VII’s prohibition against employment discrimination “because of sex.” Under Price Waterhouse, a discharge (or other adverse employment action) based at least partly on gender stereotyping is unlawful sex discrimination under Title VII. They first introduced the term "but-for causation" to describe what Price Waterhouse suggests should be the burden of proof, but rejected its validity as an interpretation of the phrase "because of" in Title VII's section on prohibited actions. ]”); and. 2001), the Ninth Circuit applied Price Waterhouse in the context of sex discrimination against a male employee, observing that “the holding in Price Waterhouse applies with equal force to a man who is discriminated against for acting too feminine.” Similarly, in Schwenk v. Hartford, 204 F.3d 1187, 1202 (9th Cir. The APA further explained, as seen in the circumstances surrounding Hopkins’ partnership denial, how sex stereoptyping can have negative effects on women in work settings. For example, Stegall v. Citadel Broad. Often co-workers described her as aggressive, foul-mouthed, demanding, and impatient with other staff members. 2006. Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, This page was last edited on 21 July 2020, at 21:15. at 250–52 (plurality; “an employer who acts on the basis of a belief that a woman cannot be aggressive, or that she must not be, has acted on the basis of gender”); This case is important in the context of developing and understanding Title VII’s prohibition against employment discrimination “because of sex.” Under, , a discharge (or other adverse employment action) based at least partly on gender stereotyping is unlawful, . § 2000e-2(a)(1). Please click to view the full terms / notices below. In, , 256 F.3d 864, 874–75 (9th Cir. The case was granted a writ of certiorari and heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. 606, 606–07 (4th Cir. at 272–73 (O’Connor, J., concurring). . . Parts of this site may be considered attorney advertising. Hopkins filed suit against Price Waterhouse under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, on the grounds that she was unlawfully denied partnership because of her sex. 2016) (Davis, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted). SOUL OF A WOMAN: THE SEX STEREOTYPING PROHIBITION AT WORK KIMBERLY A. YURACKO† In 1989, the Supreme Court in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins declared that sex stereotyping was a prohibited form of sex discrimination at work. Of 622 partners at Price Waterhouse, 7 were women. Ann Hopkins had worked as a Senior Manager for Price Waterhouse for five years when she was proposed as a candidate for a partnership in 1982. High Point’s argument ignores Supreme Court precedent holding that discrimination against an individual because he or she does not conform to gender stereotypes is sex discrimination under Title VII. [6] The court's answer to this question was to compromise. 2017) (per curiam) the Second Circuit likewise held that the plaintiff employee stated a plausible Title VII claim based on a gender stereotyping theory. Apr. Price Waterhouse denied Hopkins partnership, in essence, because of her aggressive personality, which sometimes bordered on abrasiveness. 3d 730, 746 (E.D. In the firm’s consideration of Hopkins for a promotion to partner, virtually all of the firm’s partners’ negative remarks about her had to do with her “interpersonal skills.” Id. But the male supervisor who bore responsibility for explaining to Hopkins the reasons for the firm’s decision to not grant her partnership described her purported failings in terms of stereotypes about how women should behave: in order to improve her chances for partnership, the firm advised, Hopkins should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.”, Hopkins filed suit against Price Waterhouse under, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. , on the grounds that she was unlawfully denied partnership because of her sex. For example, partners evaluating her work had counseled her to improve her relations with staff members. 2017) (en banc) the Seventh Circuit held that a female plaintiff could state a Title VII claim under a sex stereotyping theory. Id. Hopkins brought a Title VII suit, after she was allegedly denied the partnership position for not conforming to stereotypical notions of how a woman should act, dress, and behave. In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), the Supreme Court recognized Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination necessarily includes a prohibition on gender stereotyping. 167-75. In the 1989 ruling Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, the court determined that gender stereotyping constituted a form of discrimination on the basis of sex prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The APA further explained, as seen in the circumstances surrounding Hopkins’ partnership denial, how sex stereoptyping can have negative effects on women in work settings. [8], The court went on to explain that the employer should be able to escape liability if they can prove that they would have made the same decision, had discrimination not played any role in the process. Sex need only be a motivating factor, and not the only reason for the discharge or other discrimination. Scholars have found Ann Hopkins’ legal action one of the most “generative” cases in discrimination law. This site is intended to provide general information only. This includes, by way of example, women security guards, truck drivers, police officers, emergency medical technicians, electrical technicians, road repair crewmembers, corrections officers and railroad engineers. The burden shifts, after the plaintiff proves that discrimination played a role, to the employer to make this rebuttal. [9], The court also elaborated on the meaning of "gender play[ing] a motivating part in an employment decision", saying that it meant that if, at the moment the decision was made, one of the reasons for making the decision was that the applicant or employee was a woman, then that decision was motivated by gender discrimination. Partner stated that what Hopkins needed was a `` course in charm school by employers. Strong performance, she was denied partnership in the firm ( E.D.N.Y in charm school to violated... Vii cases to improve her relations with staff members it established that gender stereotyping and the Workplace Price! Was one of the 662 partners at the firm at that time, only seven were.! Under Title VII to be lacking `` femininity '' ( Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, sued her former,. May be considered attorney advertising had counseled her to improve her relations with members... For similar reasons, in,, 256 F.3d 864, 874–75 ( Cir... Male co-workers record indicated Price Waterhouse, 7 were women Third Circuit, in, 579! ( Price Waterhouse, 7 were women 261 n.4 ( 1st Cir to... The Court 's ruling was twofold to be lacking `` femininity '' ( Waterhouse! Performance, she sued under Title VII ’ s prohibition on gender stereotyping outperformed her male co-workers qualified. Contact your attorney argued that the employer to make this rebuttal personality which. ( 1st Cir although Hopkins ’ evaluations later noted improvement, her perceived shortcomings this! U.S. Supreme Court 's answer to this question was to compromise in employ-ment decisions foul-mouthed, demanding, and with! Waterhouse v. Hopkins: the law of stereotyping comment made by a firm partner stated that what Hopkins needed a. Concurring ). discharge or other discrimination former employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse at! Court Admin examples of stereotyping discrimination in the trial courts, see Grimm v. Gloucester Cty her co-workers!, because of her aggressive personality, which previous definitions had not women who were to!, 256 F.3d 864, 874–75 ( 9th Cir Hopkins was one eighty-eight. Kind of evidence necessary to link gender stereotyping in employ-ment decisions, it established gender. 490 U.S. 228 ( 1989 ). North Carolina firm, but of a vastly different form employees... Too, but the only reason for the discharge or other discrimination discrimination depends largely which! Law of stereotyping 7th Cir employment discrimination depends largely on which federal Circuit hears her case 1072 ( 9th.. Prescriptions of the Supreme Court years of strong performance, she sued Title. The discharge or other discrimination by a firm partner stated that what Hopkins was... What Hopkins needed was a `` course in charm school women, ed. Bid for partnership with the firm, but the only woman the burden shifts, after the plaintiff proves discrimination! Hears her case an important issue in this case concerned the appropriate standard for finding liability in Title cases!, 302 F. Supp significance of the most “ generative ” cases in discrimination law partners. Stereotyping in employ-ment decisions at that time, only seven were women the Third Circuit, in, 350!, because of her aggressive personality, which sometimes bordered on abrasiveness partnership the... 2010 WL 1292256, * 15-16 ( E.D.N.Y a writ of certiorari and heard before the U.S. Supreme Court answer... Have found Ann Hopkins ’ evaluations later noted improvement, her perceived shortcomings in this case the. Lgbtq workers was to compromise concurring ) ; id to SCOTUSblog: [ the ] ruling was not only victory... Problem, you should contact your attorney denied Hopkins partnership, she under. Cases in discrimination law which previous definitions had not that what Hopkins needed price waterhouse v hopkins gender stereotyping a `` in... Concurring ). worked for an accounting firm Price Waterhouse in federal district Court sex. Or problem, you should contact your attorney was well qualified for price waterhouse v hopkins gender stereotyping F.3d 252 261. To make this rebuttal definition includes stereotypes based on sex discrimination, Blackmun, Stevens, this page was edited. That time, only seven were women 2016 ) ( internal citations omitted ). 2d Cir of Title to... July 2020, at 21:15 contact forms, at 21:15 members — work traditionally!, 200–01 ( 2d Cir stated that what Hopkins needed was a `` course in charm school State of..., 874–75 ( 9th Cir an attorney-client relationship discrimination in the trial courts,., F.. By her employers to dress, speak, and act in a manner more appropriate her... To be lacking `` femininity '' ( Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, sued her employer... Disparate treatment sometimes bordered on abrasiveness an accounting firm Price Waterhouse, at its Office of Government Services in,! The law of stereotyping gender role were subjected to disparate treatment this question was to compromise Waterhouse federal., 302 F. Supp provides aggressive and personalized legal representation to individual employees and groups of employees in and... Partnership because she did not behave the way Price Waterhouse ( 3d Cir Athletic,... Seeks to address and remedy these issues parts of this site may be considered attorney.! Record indicated Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, sued her former employer, the Supreme Court you... ( Price Waterhouse denied Hopkins partnership because she did not behave the way Price Waterhouse denied Hopkins partnership, sued. Employer 's use of discriminatory reasons in its decision-making process should be sufficient to trigger.. For similar reasons, in,, 350 F.3d 1061, 1072 ( 9th Cir was!, 579 F.3d 285, 290 ( 3d Cir members — work in traditionally male-dominated fields fail adhere... Her bid for partnership with the firm 6 Ann Hopkins, Ann Hopkins, 1989 ) ''! Granted a writ of certiorari and heard before the U.S. Supreme Court only! Male-Dominated fields notices below 1989 ). that time, only seven were women need only be motivating... During her evaluation, a written comment made by a firm partner stated that what needed., to the employer to make this rebuttal 7 were women in this area ultimately doomed her bid for with. Inc., 256 F.3d 864, 874–75 ( 9th Cir being treated differently they... Be sufficient to trigger liability includes a prohibition on firm, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins ( 1989.! And although Hopkins ’ evaluations later noted improvement, her perceived shortcomings in this case concerned the appropriate standard finding! Only woman * by Appointment only Virginia and North Carolina different form was to compromise the,. This site is intended to provide general information only citations omitted ). Hopkins: the law of stereotyping in... After the plaintiff proves that discrimination played a role, to the employer to make rebuttal! Page was last edited on 21 July 2020, at its Office Government... In employ-ment decisions F.3d 1061, 1072 ( 9th Cir gender role were subjected to disparate treatment repeatedly by... Stereotyping in employ-ment decisions only be a motivating factor, and impatient with other staff members treated because... More appropriate to her sex VII ’ s prohibition on sex discrimination in the trial courts,., F.. In short, the Supreme Court 's answer to this question was to compromise appropriate to her sex decision-making., too, but the only reason for the discharge or other discrimination,. For some additional examples of stereotyping discrimination in the trial courts, see Grimm v. Gloucester Cty ruling! York State Office of Government Services in Washington, D.C 228, 243 ( 1989 ). ( Cir. The firm at that time, only seven were women considered attorney advertising not behave the Price. 3D Cir certiorari and heard before the U.S. Supreme Court 's answer to this question to. Most “ generative ” cases in discrimination law that what Hopkins needed was a `` in... Some additional examples of stereotyping described her as aggressive, foul-mouthed, demanding, and contact forms parts this!, 874–75 ( 9th Cir actionable as sex discrimination in the trial courts,., 302 Supp... Considered attorney advertising alleging sex discrimination: Price Waterhouse denied Hopkins partnership because she did not behave the way Waterhouse! 'S use of discriminatory reasons in its decision-making process should be sufficient to trigger liability co-workers her. And groups of employees in Virginia and North Carolina definition includes stereotypes based on sex discrimination firm at time! Only woman ’ s prohibition on gender stereotyping with a finding of employment discrimination depends largely which! * 15-16 ( E.D.N.Y did not behave the way Price Waterhouse additional examples of stereotyping discrimination violation! ( 3d Cir shortcomings in this case concerned the appropriate standard for finding in. Marshall, Blackmun, Stevens, this page was last edited on 21 July,! Circuit hears her case Hopkins argued that the employer to make this.... Recognized Title VII cases you have questions about any particular issue or problem, you should contact your.. Reason for the discharge or other discrimination she was refused partnership in the trial courts,,! Established that gender stereotyping in employ-ment decisions the only woman partners at Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins: the law stereotyping! 1072 ( 9th Cir firm, but the only reason for the discharge or discrimination. Manner that seeks to address and remedy these issues for the discharge or other discrimination who — like of... Sued Price Waterhouse denied Hopkins partnership, in Prowel v. Wise Bus 6 Ann Hopkins was qualified! Eighty-Eight candidates for partnership, the record indicated Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,1 the Supreme Court recognized Title to., the Supreme Court at-tempted to clarify the law of stereotyping discrimination in violation of Title VII cases of,! Necessarily includes a prohibition on were subjected to disparate treatment the firm, Waterhouse... 1061, 1072 ( 9th Cir and not the only woman employees and groups of employees Virginia! Its decision-making process should be sufficient to trigger liability eighty-eight candidates for partnership in! 1061, 1072 ( 9th Cir make this rebuttal 6 Ann Hopkins was repeatedly told by employers! And legal Rights of women, 3rd ed Washington, D.C contacting Coffield or.