Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
920 F.2d 967 (D.C. Cir. 1990)


Facts

Ann Hopkins (plaintiff) was a senior manager at Price Waterhouse (PW) (defendant). Hopkins was reviewed for promotion to partner, and the reviews generally indicated that Hopkins was highly competent, well liked by clients, a hard worker, and generally successful at her PW work. Some reviews, however, indicated that Hopkins was abrasive interpersonally and stated that this characteristic was particularly inappropriate because Hopkins was a woman. One review stated that Hopkins overcompensated for being a woman. PW denied Hopkins the promotion to partner. When Hopkins asked a PW partner about her partner candidacy, Hopkins was advised to walk, act, speak, and dress in a more feminine manner. Hopkins brought a discrimination suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the Act), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (1988). The trial court found that PW had violated the Act by denying Hopkins’s partnership as a result of sex discrimination. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court agreed that discrimination had occurred but remanded the case, finding that the lower courts should have applied a preponderance of the evidence standard, as opposed to the clear and convincing evidence standard, in offering PW the chance to demonstrate that Hopkins would have been denied partnership regardless of the sex discrimination. On remand, the trial court found that PW had not met its burden and ordered PW to elevate Hopkins to partner. PW appealed, arguing that even if the trial court had found a violation of the Act, the trial court could not elevate Hopkins to partner as a remedy for such violation.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Edwards, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.