Gender based discrimination

One of the most common bases of discrimination is gender-based. Diversity of culture
has significantly contributed to the emergence of special and minority groups. Many workplaces
have responded by observing inclusivity and cultural sensitivity. Some have become rigid to the
changes, leading to incidences of discrimination and stereotyping. When employees are excluded
on an illegal basis such as gender, unfair and unlawful discrimination occurs (Cascio & Aguinis
2018). This paper analyzes case law, Price Water vs. Hopkins case of 1989, its outcome,
implications, and the case’s application in workplaces.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
The Supreme court of the United States delivered a decision on Price Waterhouse v.
Hopkins, 490 U.S 288 (1989). The petitioner, Ann B. Hopkins, was a partner at the accounting
firm Price Waterhouse. In 1982, the partners in her firm refused to repropose her partnership,
prompting her to sue Price Waterhouse. The suit was filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 on the grounds that the respondent had been discriminated against based on her gender.
The Federal district court ruled in her favor and found that the petitioner had willingly and
unlawfully discriminated against her. The Federal court considered comments made against her
in the ruling and determined that they amounted to sex stereotyping. The matter was then taken
to the court of appeal, which affirmed the federal court’s decision.
The discrimination, findings, and outcome
According to the decisions of the court, the respondent was discriminated based on
gender. The Civil Rights act of 1964 section 2000e-2 expressly prohibits employers from
refusing to hire or discriminate in any other manner an individual due to their race, color,

3
religion, sex, or national origin. Besides employment, the section includes other aspects of
employment such as compensation, terms and conditions, and other work-related privileges. It
widens the scope against sexual discrimination to include employment agencies training
programs. The respondent in Price Waterhouse v Hopkins was already in employment at the
material time that the events occurred. Discrimination occurred when the response was due to be
considered for partnership. When delivering its ruling, the federal district court held that the
petitioner allowed sex stereotyping to influence their decision while considering the respondent’s
candidature for partnership. Price Waterhouse could not prove based on the evidence provided
that they would have reached the same decision regardless of the petitioner’s gender.
In further consideration of the evidence, the justices also found that the petitioners (Price
Waterhouse) relied on an illegal and impermissible criterion when considering the respondent for
partnership. The justices held that the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ought to be
followed in plain language. Therefore, the employer’s reliance on an illegal and discriminatory
criterion influenced the employer’s refusal to repropose the respondent for partnership.
The implication of the ruling
The outcome of Price Water vs. Hopkins is essential to today’s diverse work
environment. Over the last few years, there has been an increased global campaign to raise
awareness on the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Gay community (LGBTQ). Besides
raising awareness, the campaign has worked towards eliminating the discrimination against
members of LGBTQ based on their sexual orientation. The freedoms and rights guaranteed in the
American constitution allow people to choose their sexual orientation (Shirani 2017). The
outcome of Price Water vs. Hopkins can be applied as a point of reference when handling
employment matters regarding candidates who belong to the LGBTQ community.

4
The case is also applicable when determining the scope of stereotyping. (Cascio &
Aguinis 2018) note that according to EEOC, sex-orientation stereotyping is a form of sex-
discrimination because it is gender based. Some professions were considered male or female-
dominated. For example, most high-risk jobs such as security guards or firefighters were until
recently considered male-dominated. In their determination, the supreme court justices found
that stereotyping creates unwanted perceptions about people, the work they do, and the positions
they hold in society. Stereotyping at the workplace affects productivity and the work
environment by influencing receptivity to feedback (Casad &Bryant, 2016). Therefore, in a work
environment, managers and leaders can rely on the ruling of Price Water vs. Hopkins to promote
equity and stem out any form of stereotyping.
One of the justices in the case found that Price Water did not take adequate steps to
prevent the respondent from discriminatory stereotyping. This means that in the eyes of the law,
employers are required to take necessary measures to protect their staff from stereotyping. Some
of the methods available to employers include the promotion of diversity. This can be achieved
through communication. Employers need to pass the message that the attributes required for
successfully executing roles and tasks are not gender-based.
Additionally, leaders can design their staffing and placement strategies to demonstrate
that career progression is not affected by gender, and as such, any person can flourish in any
position. Firms can also show their commitment towards gender inclusivity and cultural diversity
by recruiting from diverse groups. This way, the firm increases the chances of cross-cultural
interactions, thereby minimizing stereotyping triggers.
In conclusion, Price Water vs. Hopkins’s case study provides value applicable in today’s
workplaces. The case gives an in-depth clarification of title VII of The Civil Rights Act and

5
offers an interpretation on its application. The supreme court’s determination also gives clarity on
the dangers of stereotyping and discrimination based on gender. Businesses should strive to
adopt business practices that ensure inclusivity and diversity

6

References
Casad, B. J., & Bryant, W. J. (2016). Addressing Stereotype Threat is Critical to Diversity and
Inclusion in Organizational Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00008
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2018). Applied Psychology in Talent Management. SAGE
Publications.
Shirani, A. (2017). Title VII – Competing Approaches to Establishing a Prima Facie Case for
Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation Under Title VII. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2909996