The Federalist Society

Optional Login

Have an account?

Sign in

Email

Password


Forgot password?

Proceed as Guest

Continue
Our website is currently undergoing updates, some links may no longer work and content may change. Please check back soon.

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins

Facts of the Case

Provided by Oyez

Ann Hopkins worked at Price Waterhouse for five years before being proposed for partnership. Although Hopkins secured a $25 million government contract that year, the board decided to put her proposal on hold for the following year. The next year, when Price Waterhouse refused to re-propose her for partnership, she sued under Title VII for sex discrimination. Of 622 partners at Price Waterhouse, 7 were women. The partnership selection process relied on recommendations by other partners, some of whom openly opposed women in advanced positions, but Hopkins also had problems with being overly aggressive and not getting along with office staff.

The district court held that Price Waterhouse had discriminated, but Hopkins was not entitled to full damages because her poor interpersonal skills also contributed to the board’s decision. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, but held that the employer is not liable if it can show by clear and convincing evidence that it would have made the same employment decision in the absence of discrimination.

Questions

  1. Did the Court of Appeals err in requiring the employer to prove it would have made the same employment decision in the absence of discrimination by clear and convincing evidence?

Conclusions

  1. Yes in part. In a 6-3 decision, Justice William J. Brennan wrote the plurality opinion reversing the lower court and remanding. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals applied the right test, but should have placed the burden at “preponderance of the evidence” not “clear and convincing evidence”. On remand, Price Waterhouse would escape liability if it shows it would have denied Hopkins partnership even if she were not a woman.

    Justice Byron R. White wrote a concurrence, stating that there was no requirement for the employer to submit objective evidence. The employer’s credible testimony alone was enough. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a concurrence, expressing that the Court’s opinion was only a supplement to McDonnell Douglas.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissent, stating that he would stick with the evidentiary standards from McDonnell Douglas. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia joined in the dissent.