Ann Hopkins Vs. Price Waterhouse Case Study

What counts as workplace discrimination? How does stereotyping affect a seemingly fair decision process? Is there a line between friendly advice and sexist opinions? These are some of the questions that were discussed in the Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse case of 1985. The court found that Price Waterhouse did violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the basis of gender discrimination in the workplace. Although there are some valid opposing points, I ultimately agree with the court’s decision because the firm did not address the sexist comments and stereotyping made by its employees against Hopkins. Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse is considered a significant case because it established that discrimination does not have to be explicit to be unlawful and because it set the standards for future sex discrimination cases.

The Case of Ann Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse
Ann Hopkins, a long time employee of Price Waterhouse, was nominated for a partnership in August 1982. Being a partner mean less supervision, more responsibility, a double in Hopkin’s paycheck and a more secured job as it is tenured appointment.

A lower standard of evidence, such as the ones presented in Hopkin’s case, can be used as valid proof. This is a step forward to combat discrimination in the workplace because this recognizes that implicit forms of biases, such as stereotyping, have huge impacts in how people are treated in the workplace. Unaddressed biases can affect many workplace decisions, from promotions to daily interactions with coworkers. Not only did this case address this issue, it also established that firms are responsible for making sure that its employees are aware of biases and stereotypes and for proactively looking into incidents where stereotypes might have influenced a workplace