Summary Of The Hopkins V. Price Waterhouse Case
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) also spoke to the act of “sex-stereotyping” with reference to the Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse (1987) case. In this particular case, a female employee of a management firm filed a claim of sex discrimination against her employer. The plaintiff alleged that she was denied partnership with the company for acting “too masculine.” The employer reportedly informed the plaintiff that she may receive reconsideration the following year and she should focus on “walking, talking, and dressing more feminine” to progress her chances of becoming a partner (Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 1987). Ultimately, the following year, she was not reconsidered for partner. On appeal, the district court found the employer
…show more content…
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc, 2015). Upon hire, the plaintiff presented as male. While still employed, Stephens (plaintiff) informed her employers of her decision to begin the process of reassignment surgery which requires an individual seeking reassignment to live and work as their preferred gender for approximately one year. Within a month’s time of informing her co-workers and owner of her plans, Stephens was terminated. Although transgender individuals are not considered a ‘protected class’ under Title VII; it does however protect transgender and all individuals from being discriminated against for failing to comply with gender stereotypes or norms based on perceived sex as interpreted by Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse (Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 1987) . Because Stephens was terminated for not conforming to the “employer’s sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes;” the EEOC was able to make a case for sex-stereotyping sex-based discrimination claim under Title VII (EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc, 2015). The employer appealed the decision citing ministerial exception; however, it did not apply. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted summary judgement for the plaintiff for unlawful termination (EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc,
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc, 2015). Upon hire, the plaintiff presented as male. While still employed, Stephens (plaintiff) informed her employers of her decision to begin the process of reassignment surgery which requires an individual seeking reassignment to live and work as their preferred gender for approximately one year. Within a month’s time of informing her co-workers and owner of her plans, Stephens was terminated. Although transgender individuals are not considered a ‘protected class’ under Title VII; it does however protect transgender and all individuals from being discriminated against for failing to comply with gender stereotypes or norms based on perceived sex as interpreted by Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse (Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 1987) . Because Stephens was terminated for not conforming to the “employer’s sex- or gender-based preferences, expectations, or stereotypes;” the EEOC was able to make a case for sex-stereotyping sex-based discrimination claim under Title VII (EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc, 2015). The employer appealed the decision citing ministerial exception; however, it did not apply. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted summary judgement for the plaintiff for unlawful termination (EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc,