1. There is an ethical problem between Hopkins point of view and Price Waterhouse point of view on why Hopkins was not given partnership. Many individuals in this case failed to be ethical. Ann Hopkins was denied her life-long dream of partnering with Price WaterHouse firm. The selection and her nomination process was not done fairly. She believed that sex discrimination was the ethical issue behind the whole process. Hopkins was a hard, ambitious and dedicated worker who took her job very seriously. Although she had the qualifications to get the partnership, she was turned down and believed that she was discriminated against on the basis of what she perceived as feministic. She was given advice that she needed to change her style and personal
…show more content…
Especially because of her hard personality. However, the fact that they placed her on hold and returned her to her current role, with feedback on how to improve her professional and interpersonal skills might be a good option. She will have the opportunity to re-apply for partnership the following year. This won't causes any major consequences for Price Waterhouse and would stop them from making an irrational decision that could have a long-term negative impact on them. Also, Hopkins might work on improving herself and get promoted once the hold period is met. She might also get partnership if she decides to stay. If she still does not show signs of improvement, Price Waterhouse would be more protected in case Hopkins decided to sue based on sex discrimination because she was not promoted. But if that’s what she decides to pursuit, she is giving them the power to control the …show more content…
But because her physical appearance was brought up, she assumed that this was the reason behind being her put on hold. Therefore, If Hopkins decides to leave the company and sue them for sex discrimination, she would have a winning case. Title VII section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Because Price Waterhouse had unlawfully discriminated against Hopkins by bringing up her physical appearance, it had allowed discriminatory intentions to be part in the partnership decision and therefore they could not prove that it would have made the same decision in the absence of
Especially because of her hard personality. However, the fact that they placed her on hold and returned her to her current role, with feedback on how to improve her professional and interpersonal skills might be a good option. She will have the opportunity to re-apply for partnership the following year. This won't causes any major consequences for Price Waterhouse and would stop them from making an irrational decision that could have a long-term negative impact on them. Also, Hopkins might work on improving herself and get promoted once the hold period is met. She might also get partnership if she decides to stay. If she still does not show signs of improvement, Price Waterhouse would be more protected in case Hopkins decided to sue based on sex discrimination because she was not promoted. But if that’s what she decides to pursuit, she is giving them the power to control the …show more content…
But because her physical appearance was brought up, she assumed that this was the reason behind being her put on hold. Therefore, If Hopkins decides to leave the company and sue them for sex discrimination, she would have a winning case. Title VII section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Because Price Waterhouse had unlawfully discriminated against Hopkins by bringing up her physical appearance, it had allowed discriminatory intentions to be part in the partnership decision and therefore they could not prove that it would have made the same decision in the absence of