Ann Hopkins Essay -- essays research papers fc

jural Analysis moldingThe relevant facts     According to the case, Ann Hopkins had worked successfully for Price Waterhouse since 1978 and was nominated for partnership at Price Waterhouse in 1982. (p. 1) Out of 88 candidates she was the only woman. In the admissions process, forms were direct out to all Price Waterhouse partners of whom there were 662. These partners then submitted their comments to the highest degree the candidates. . besides thirty- 2 partners, all male, responded about Hopkins. (p. 5) The forms were then tabulated to achieve a statistical rating in order to determine if the candidate should be admitted to the partnership. Of the 88 candidates Price Waterhouse offered partnerships to 47 of them, rejected 21, and placed 20, including Hopkins, on hold. (p. 1) Some candidates had been held because of concerns about their interpersonal skills. the Policy Board takes evaluations or a negative answer on this basis very seriously, even if the negative comments on curt form evaluations were found upon less contact with the candidate than glowing reports on long forms evaluations based on more extensive contact. The policy table had however, recommended and elected two candidates "criticized for their interpersonal skills. (p. 4) Approximately 1% of the 662 partners were women. Price Waterhouse gave two explanations for this. One was the relatively recent entry of large numbers of women into accounting system and related fields. The other was the success of clients and rival accounting firms in hiring away female potential partners. (p. 4). After hearing that it was unlikely that she would ever build partner, Ann Hopkins decided to initiate a lawsuit charging Price Waterhouse with sex variety. She had been a valuable and productive member of the organization and it appears that she was denied admission as a partner since she did not fit the feminine stereotype. Critical issues LegalThere is evidence of Intention al Discrimination by Price Waterhouse and its employees based on sexual stereotype. Appropriate legal rulesAccording to Corley, Reed, Shedd, and Morehead, (2001) the most weighty statue eliminating discriminatory employment practices, however, is the federal civil Rights venture of 1964, as amend by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act o 1972 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The appropriation section o... ... order to examine and evaluate the honest questions? The assumption that needs to be made in analyzing the case atomic number 18 that discriminating against an individual based on a deviation from the legitimate stereotype for their gender is morally unacceptable. Ethically, what should be done?     Price Waterhouse should condition its partners and employees about accepted work practices and should institute diversity training in order to educate members that stereotyping is unacceptable. Ann Hopkins should be admitted as partner to the firm and wel comed as a valuable addition to senior management. Works CitedCivil Rights Act of 1964. 2 July 1964. U.S. Department of State. 12 Sept. 2004.      http//usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htmCivil Rights Act of 1991. 8 March 1991. U.S. Department of State. 12 Sept. 2004.      http//usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civil91.htmHarvard line of business School. Ann Hopkins (A). Boston Harvard Business School Publishing, 1991.Velasquez, Manuel G. (2002) Owen, C., (5th Ed.). Business Ethics Concepts and Cases. Upper Saddle River, NJ apprentice Hall