equal abilities. There is evidence to prove that PWC violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination
of any kind. . There is evidence to prove that Ann Hopkins was denied a partnership based on the fact that she is female.
Thomas Beyer, who did the final review of Ann Hopkins nomination, stated that Ms. Hopkins “soften her image in the manner in which she walked, talked, and dressed…”He also advised her that she needed to “look more toward appearing more feminine,” to wear more jewelry and make-up, to style her hair, and to dress less in “power blues.”² This comment made by Beyer is totally insignificant to Ann Hopkins ability to perform her duties as a partner. Whether she wore more pink or appeared more feminine, she still carries the same capabilities of performance versus if she wore more of her “power blues.” It later stated that after this, two more of the partners who initially nominated Hopkins withdrew their support. “Reviews of her work on the State Department Real Estate management project were, on balance, favorable.” ³ There was no reason for either of the male parties to withdraw their support based on Beyer’s comment that Hopkins present herself in a more feminine fashion. However, it is a proven fact over and over again that Ann Hopkins has carried out all of her projects with high scores and great comments on her work ability. One colleague quotes that “Ann has the will to get things done.” Her lack of femininity should not be a factor in why she should not be made a partner.
Another issue that presented itself was that in order to be made a partner of the firm, at least 75% of the votes had to be in agreement. Why then did PWC admit one candidate who had support from only 14 of the 30 partners, while Ann Hopkins had 13 of the 32 partners support? This should raise a few eyebrows in terms of if a rule was already made, why then is their an exception made for this male candidate and no exception was made for Ann Hopkins? This further indicates that PWC is not in accordance with the EEOC and is in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by making an exception for a male employee, but not giving the same exception to a female employee.
If I were upper management in PWC’s position, there are several things I would do in order to avoid any whistle blowing on behalf of Hopkins. First off, it was stated that most of the partners in the company were male, except for 7. Why then were the 7 women not included in the voting of new partners? PWC needs to reinstate their decision and allow for the seven women to voice their opinions. Second, it has been determined that Ann Hopkins has “interpersonal” issues. It has been my experience that when an employee does not meet the standards and expectations of certain things, it is upper management duty to coach and train them. In Ann Hopkins case, instead of dismissing her from a partnership, I would admit her under a trial period and put her through communication courses in order to strengthen her interpersonal skills. Corporations have a duty to ban any form of sexual harassment, and this starts at the top and trickles to the bottom. The image of an individual is no reason for that person to be discharged from a promotion; rather, it should be the ability of the individual to perform his/her job. PWC needs to revise their structure of a partnership in order to avoid any legal issues.
Ethical Analysis:
As a corporation, it is also their duty to have moral responsibility towards their employees. Ethics is defined as “the study of moral judgments involved in moral decisions. It is concerned with what is morally right and wrong.” ¹ Ethics also focuses on the rightness and wrongness of human behavior. In this case, it shows that society played a major factor in PWC’s decision of what is right and wrong. The partners of PWC, consists of mainly males. It is not only Ann Hopkins with interpersonal issues in this case, but also the males involved in the partnership decision. Society has clouded their judgement of what is the right thing to do. The men involved are stuck in the ice-age era where men are the breadwinners and women’s duties are solely domesticated. These men need to deal with the fact that women can excel in what was known as a traditionally men’s role. In Kohlberg’s Stage Three of moral development states that “good behavior in this stage is living the expectation of those for whom one feels loyalty..Right action is conformity to what is generally expected in one’s role..Doing what is right is motivated by the need to be seen as a good performer in one’s eyes and in the eyes of others.” ² Given this stage, these men are not showing their loyalty of the company’s business ethics. Because they are discriminating Hopkins based on her gender, they are violating PWC’s code of ethics. The example of the two partners who withdrew their decisions are not doing what they feel is right, but what others feel is right. They are violating their own moral ethics and the company’s code of ethics.
In my position, I would review the company’s business ethics again. I would also ask myself “would I and the Company feel comfortable from a moral, ethical and legal standpoint?” If the answer is “yes”, then the action is probably aligned with the corporate philosophy. If my answer is “No”, then I need to review my actions with an upper manager or with the Company’s Law department before proceeding to my final decision. PWC should value communication and “whistle blowing” because it performs a valuable function in maintaining high ethical standards of conduct and will reduce the risk to the company, its employees, directors and stockholders from a conduct that does not meet the Company’s expectations.
Following these guidelines will prevent PriceWaterHouse Coopers from a lawsuit which will affect not only their financials, but also their reputation from talented employees who are seeking to join PWC. By allowing sexual discrimination to occur in the workplace, and also with upper management, they are not following the philosophy of legal and ethics.
References
Page 2:
¹ “Ethical and Legal Environment of Business” pg. 26
² “Ethical and Legal Environement of Business” Appendix E, pg. 11
³ “Ethical and Legal Environment of Business” Appendix E, pg. 12
Page 4:
¹ “Ethical and Legal Environment of Business” pg. 33
² “Business Ethics Concepts and Cases” Valdez, Manuel. Pg. 26
