• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. 9
  10. 10
  11. 11
  12. 12
  13. 13

Ann Hopkins Case Analysis

Extracts from this document...


MBA C601 Legal and Ethical Analysis of Ann Hopkins Derek Koga 1/20/2007 LEGAL CASE ANALYSIS I. FACTS Ann Hopkins was nominated for partnership at Price Waterhouse (PW) in August 1982 (1). She was a senior manager in the firm's Office of Government Services (OGS) in Washington, D.C., where she specialized in large-scale, computer-based systems designed for government agencies (2). Her 1982 nomination class included 88 total candidates with Ann Hopkins as the only women in the group (3). PW offered partnerships to 47 of them, rejected 21 and placed 20, including Ann Hopkins, on hold (4). While her partnership was put on hold, Ann Hopkins met with PW's chairman to discuss the decision and the admissions committee's recommendations. PW had suggested that she be given more work with partners and undertakes a quality control review in order to demonstrate her skills and allay concerns about her (5). In 1983, two of the partners which originally supported her nomination opposed her re-nomination and soon after Ann Hopkins was told that she would never become partner at PW (6). Ann Hopkins was born December 18, 1943 and graduated high school in 1961. She received her B.A in mathematics at Hollins College in 1965 and finished her masters in mathematics from Indiana University in 1967 (7). She described herself as "third generation, small town Texas" and as an army "brat" who "learned from her childhood how to be an outsider" (8). Her month taught her that "when you shake hands, you should always shake hands firmly and when you walk into a room, you should walk in as if you owned it" (9). Her career began as mathematics teacher at Indian University. She later joined IBM and worked as a mathematical physicist and managed a 7 person project for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (10). In 1972, Ann Hopkins joined Computer Sciences Corporation where she continued to work on NASA accounts. ...read more.


During the next few months, according to Ann Hopkins, the firm failed to give her opportunities to demonstrate her abilities and gain more exposure. Four months after the policy board's recommendations, with two OGS's strong support, it was felt that her candidacy could not possibly be successful. Ann Hopkins was advised that it was very unlikely that she would be admitted to partnership (35). Reviews of her work on the State Department Real Estate management project were, on balance, favorable. An initial review by the partner who had been removed from the large State Department project was negative, but the subsequent Quality Control Review conducted on the State Department work, including REMS, was a "strong positive" (36). Ann Hopkins later wrote that she was "the only candidate who was not admitted to PW initially or after being put on hold-who was criticized solely for deficiencies in interpersonal skills" (37). Similarly situated men, she says, were admitted. Hopkins was at the bottom of overall quartile rankings and only 13 of 32 partners favored her admission, but the firm had admitted one candidate who had support from 14 of 30 partners and another who ranked 39th of 42 in overall quartile rankings (38). In December 1983, she learned she would not be re-proposed for partnership. Ann Hopkins tendered her resignation and left PW in January (39). In 1984, she started her own management consulting firm and she also filed suit against PW claiming that she had been denied a partnership because of sex discrimination (40). She sought an award of back pay for lost wages and reinstatement at PW as a partner (41). II. CRITICAL LEGAL ISSUES The legal issues are: 1. Is it legal to gender stereotype in the workplace? 2. Is it legal to apply gender stereotyping when evaluating workplace performance? III. LEGAL RULES Legal Issue 1 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits job discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, except when there are bona fide occupational qualifications reasonably necessary to normal business operations. ...read more.


From another perspective, the utility of lessening the value of potential female candidates due to a preconceived notion of appropriate female behavior is absurd. Removing gender stereotyping from the partnership approval process would increase the availability of the best candidates regardless of sex. The ethical behavior with the greatest utility would be to embrace their presence and maximize the potential utility to the whole. In applying Kantian values, one must evaluate if the actions satisfied the categorical imperative. Everyone should have a moral right to be treated as a free and equal person and should treat all other in the same way.( Bruce, D. & Parks, J ) PW using gender stereotyping cannot argue that they would wish to be evaluated in a similar fashion; therefore their behavior in using gender stereotyping is unethical. The second dictum of the categorical imperative involves treating persons only as they would have freely consented to be treated beforehand, and develop each person's capacity to freely choose the aims they will pursue. (Bruce, D. & Parks, J ) Clearly Ann Hopkins would not have consented to be treated in the manner that she was, since she was not allowed to freely choose her own aims. Therefore, PW again did not behave ethically. In conclusion, the partners of PW did not behave ethically in dealing with Ann Hopkins. The correct ethical behavior would have been to offer her a partnership based on the merits of her accomplishments, not smeared by gender stereotype preconceptions. Notes (1) Barkan, Ilyse. (1991). Ann Hopkins (A) Harvard Business School, 9-391-155. (2) Ibid. (3) Ibid. (4) Ibid. (5) Ibid. (6) Ibid. (7) Ibid. (8) Ibid. (9) Ibid. (10) Ibid. (11) Ibid. (12) Ibid. (13) Ibid. (14) Ibid. (15) Ibid. (16) Ibid. (17) Ibid. (18) Ibid. (19) Ibid. (20) Ibid. (21) Ibid. (22) Ibid. (23) Ibid. (24) Ibid. (25) Ibid. (26) Ibid. (27) Ibid. (28) Ibid. (29) Ibid. (30) Ibid. (31) Ibid. (32) Ibid. (33) Ibid. (34) Ibid. (35) Ibid. (36) Ibid. (37) Ibid. (38) Ibid. (39) Ibid. (40) Ibid. (41) Ibid. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Business, Companies and Organisation, Activity section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Business, Companies and Organisation, Activity essays

  1. Business Studies Edexcel Coursework

    He wouldn't want to go for newspaper ads or radio adverts since they are far too expensive, and we must remember that Errol is only a sole trader, with all financing coming from himself or loans. As Errol only needs to attract customers in the area of Harrow, he is able to control the area of distribution with leaflets.


    * If anyone is unsure about what we do here at the SOFA Project, explain that we are a charity to help people on low incomes and to recycle furniture by saving it from going into landfill or broken up.

  1. Business Studies

    on the last day they are due Loans > Rather than borrowing to buy the product the business could sell lease back > An advantage is the lease repayments are a tax deduction Overdrafts > A business can control its over draft by ensuring that all cash received is promptly

  2. Competitor Analysis for Accessorize

    Accessorize owns several stores situated in great places such as the Metro Centre, Eldon Square and Gateshead. These are good places in which to situate a business because they are popular shopping areas which are surrounded by many villages and have many transport links, making them easily accessible to potential consumers.

  1. Case Facts / Summary - Mr. Ingram and Mr Christmas were partners in a ...

    Ingram was not liable under section 36(1) of the Partnership Act 1890 as an `apparent ` partner. Lynskey, J said; " apparent members means members who are apparently members to the person who is dealing with the firm, and they may be apparent either by the fact that the customer

  2. Legally the brothers could now be a partnership emphasised by Jessel MR in Pooley ...

    in it's registration with the Registrar of Companies. A drawback of having a company is that law strictly regulates it. It must produce annual accounts in a set format and have them audited by the Registrar of Companies, for this reason the administration of a company is often more burdensome than that of a partnership.

  1. Job roles and contracts at Alton Towers

    � Pension scheme & Life Assurance, As part of the wider Merlin Entertainments Group, you will enjoy continuous support and opportunities to branch out and develop your career. B2 Contract of employment CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT B2 1. Names of the contracted parties Between: Alton Towers (the 'Employer')

  2. Importance of Human Resources Management

    carried out to compare with Ford's budget for these expenses, to see whether Ford can afford that many expenses or not. According to the targets set by the managers should be achieved by their employees in a period of time.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work