Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on Hopkins V. Price Waterhouse. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
3 pages in length. The foundation of this case is in the fundamental understanding of and appreciation for the detrimental impact sexual discrimination has upon a woman's ability to secure earned promotion within a company that determines advancement based upon much more than one's talent. Hopkins was initially refused partnership at Price Waterhouse not for lack of aptitude for the position but rather because she was deemed 'too masculine' for what they believed a woman should project within the company's environment. While half of the decision makers - the majority not surprisingly being men - heralded her tremendous talent for landing key contracts, they could not get past the stereotypical perception of how a female partner should be physically represented in the firm. As such, she was recommended to walk, talk and look more feminine so that when she would be brought back for reconsideration the following year, her chances of making partner would be much better; a year later when she was not reconsidered for partnership, Hopkins sued Price Waterhouse citing violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. No bibliography.
Page Count:
3 pages (~225 words per page)
File: LM1_TLCPriceWater.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
within a company that determines advancement based upon much more than ones talent. Hopkins was initially refused partnership at Price Waterhouse not for lack of aptitude for the position
but rather because she was deemed too masculine for what they believed a woman should project within the companys environment. While half of the decision makers - the majority
not surprisingly being men - heralded her tremendous talent for landing key contracts, they could not get past the stereotypical perception of how a female partner should be physically represented
in the firm. As such, she was recommended to walk, talk and look more feminine so that when she would be brought back for reconsideration the following year, her
chances of making partner would be much better; a year later when she was not reconsidered for partnership, Hopkins sued Price Waterhouse citing violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. This case went back and forth before the Supreme Court finally overruled the lower courts who initially found for Hopkins by virtue of Price Waterhouse bearing
the burden of liability for blatantly incorporating discriminatory practices. That Price Waterhouse failed to present clear and convincing evidence in order to absolve the firm of any culpability served
to secure Hopkins victory. The United States Supreme Court heard the appeal and subsequently reversed the lower courts ruling by stating Price Waterhouse had the potential for skirting liability
under Title VII by proving with merely a preponderance of evidence that the firm would have implemented unfavorable action against the employee had the motive of unlawful discrimination not been
the case. To this end, the high Court cited a mistake on the part of the lower courts when they mandated Price Waterhouse to provide clear and convincing evidence
...