• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Ann Hopkins Case Analysis "A Case of the Legal and Ethical Issues PriceWaterHouse faced"

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Ann Hopkins Case Analysis "A Case of the Legal and Ethical Issues PriceWaterHouse faced" By: Kim Dang While our culture has made progress against sexism within the past decade, the sad truth is that sexism and sexual discrimination still exists. Several reports and stories have been publicized in the past few years regarding the treatment of women in the workplace. Women have a harder time getting higher positions of authority at work than men, and are often paid a salary much lesser than their male counterparts. The Ann Hopkins case represents the legal and ethical issues of a corporate structure. Ms. Hopkins was a dedicated, able, and intelligent employee of PriceWaterHouse Coopers who believed that she would be next in line for a partnership with the firm. In her years with PriceWaterHouse, Ms. Hopkins has brought much to the company. She has successfully completed big projects as project manager (this includes the State Department, Farmers Home Credit, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs projects). Because of the successful outcomes of these big projects, Ann Hopkins believed that she will become the next partner for PriceWaterHouse Coopers. The outcome of the case was that PW decided to put her partnership status on "hold" due to her interpersonal skills. However, because the decisions are made by existing partners whom were mainly men, there were impressions that Ms. ...read more.

Middle

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. ...read more.

Conclusion

� 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. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Employment Law 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 University Degree Employment Law essays

  1. Discuss and analyse the legal concept of protected trade dispute. Explain also whether, in ...

    A trade dispute cannot be brought about by the forced action, which is not included in the original terms of the employment. A similar situation to this would be the case involving the BBC vs Hearn (1978) In this case the there was a Football Cup Final which the BBC

  2. Selwyn states that it is difficult to categorise working individuals because of the complexity ...

    service is, also noting that in order to differentiate between the different categories of working individuals, more "sophisticated analysis"33 is required. The case illustrates the difficulty of defining workers because it contrasts with the earlier case of Express v Tanton.34 In Express,35 the driver was held to be self-employed because

  1. Sexual Harassment Law

    - 5 - Notably, both Fredman (ibid) and others (eg. Smart ('Feminism and the Power of Law' (1989)) agree that the law has its limitations, particularly when poorly enforced and that behavioural and educational reform using non-legal means is required. Fredman notes 'reformulation of the aim of the law ...

  2. Sex Discrimination in Ireland - Pregnancy

    EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd34 only served to highlight the Luxembourg Court as the purveyor of change.35 An employer cannot use the complainant's unavailability for work as a rationale for dismissing her. This decision only serves to underline the weightiness of your claim and emphasizes a fact that that should

  1. company directors

    He should perform duties at board meetings. He should attend when able but is not bound to all. 3. A director in the absence for grounds of suspicion can trust his official to perform his duties if he cannot perform them himself.

  2. employment law

    Unfair Redundancy Dismissal Redundancy is a prima facie fair ground for dismissal. It is important to remember that the statutory presumption that a dismissal is for redundancy under the Employment Right Act 1996 s. 163 (2), which applies when the claim is for a redundancy payment, does not apply in relation to an unfair dismissal claim.

  1. Employment Law - Sex Discrimination

    Employers are responsible for their employees' behaviour by virtue of employers' vicarious liability, so Harry is likely to be liable for Ron's treatment towards Sarah whilst they were at work unless Harry can show that he took adequate steps to prevent any harassment or discriminatory behaviour occurring.

  2. Tess' situation is one that will involve various aspects of employment law. The issues ...

    [therefore] the triangular nature of the arrangement may have the effect that the worker fails to qualify as having a contract of employment ... of any kind.'1 Tess' contract has a clause stating she is not an employee of either Dolby Hospital or the agency, however such labels tend to be ignored by the courts (Ferguson2)

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