Title VII Of The Civil Rights Case: Hopkins V.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unequivocally states that it is “unlawful employment practice for an employer...to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin” (“Title VII”). In 1984, the limits and lengths of this statutory provision were put to the test as Price Waterhouse employee Ann Hopkins filed suit against her company for discrimination in violation of Title VII. Hopkins, denied a partnership position through what she considered to be a discriminatory evaluation system, argued that her alleged lack of interpersonal skills served to her detriment solely because she was a woman.
plaintiff Hopkins, should bear the burden of proof that the firm did indeed discriminate based on sex. Effectively, because the employer had legitimate concern over Hopkins’ suitability for partnership, the plaintiff has to prove that she is the “victim of intentional discrimination” (“Price Waterhouse”). The problem is that the plaintiff’s case rests purely on hypotheticals. That is, it is impossible to say with certainty if Hopkins would have been chosen for partner had she been male. There were clear issues with Hopkins’ candidacy, such as her dismissive and rough attitude toward other employees that is completely independent of bias related to her gender. Disentangling the concerns over her interpersonal skills from concerns about the way a “lady partner should behave” becomes almost impossible. Furthermore, the qualitative nature of evaluations was supported by the premium Price Waterhouse placed on a candidate’s ability to “deal with subordinates and peers on an interpersonal basis” (Badaracco 3). Hopkins was placed on hold in the evaluation process along with male employees who also demonstrated questionable interpersonal skills. Her ultimate rejection from partnership may have been based partners simply not seeing her “fit” with the company regardless of her gender. Furthermore, the firm expressed concern that partners who have “a potential for abusing authority can cause serious long term problems for the firm” (Badaracco 3). The comments attributed to the partner Fridley state ethical concerns over Hopkins’ behavior during the Bureau of Indian Affairs project. Though on paper her record was excellent, it was only through these more qualitative evaluations that Fridley could adequately express the concerns about her management methods and honesty, two traits also especially important to consider when promoting