Kamen, Al

English

Hollins University

Hollins University Hollins Digital Commons Ann B. Hopkins Papers Manuscript Collections 5-2-1989 Court Backs Women on Sex Bias Al Kamen Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/hopkins-papers  Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons THE WASHINGTON POST, Tuesday, May 2, .1989, p. Al( )iirt Backs,Women |On Sex BiasEmployers GivenGreater BurdenOf Proof in DisputesBy Al Kamen iashington Post Staff Writer !The Supreme Court, in a decision jhailed by women s ri hts groups as Ian important victory, ruled 6 to 3yesterday that once a womanpresents direct evidence that shewas denied promotion because ofillegal  sex stereotyping,  it is up toher em loyer to prove there wereother, legitimate reasons for deny-;ing the promotion. :  Justice William J. Brennan Jr.,writing the lead opinion in the caseof a District woman who sued PriceWaterhouse, said the companymay avoid a finding of liability onlyby proving ... that it would havemade the same decision even if ithad not taken the [woman’s] gender into account.”But Brennan sent the case backfor further hearings because thefederal appeals court here had re¬quired too hi h a level of proof foremployers to show that their actionwas taken for legitimate reasons.  Price Waterhouse, focusing onthat part of the ruling, also claimedvictory, saying it was “confident”that it eventually would win under areduced standard of proof once thecase went back before the judge.Women's rights groups, howev¬er, said, the, overall rulin  uphel the effectiveness of federal lawsagainst race, sex or age discrimi¬nation in the workplace.Civil rights lawyers said a rulin  Ithat employees always have theburden of proof would have guttedenforcement of those antidiscrim¬ination laws. The question of whohas the burden of proof is often'thedecisive factor in these types of“mixed motive” cases, where anemployment decision hinges on le- ,gitimate as well as improper rea¬sons. .The case, Price Waterhouse v.Hopkins, had been closely watchedas a  second generation  job dis¬crimination case that did not focuson barriers to entry to the work¬place but more subtle barriers topromotion into managerial posi¬tions.See COURT, A7, Col. 1; COURT, From Al  The case began in 1983 whenAnn B. Hopkins, a  anagementconsultant, was not among the 47emplo ees selected for partnershipat Price Waterhouse, one of thenation s “big ei ht  accountin firms, even though she brought inmore business than any of the other87 candidates for partnership..One supervisor suggested thatshe should  walk  ore femininely,talk  ore femininely, dress morefemininely, wear makeup, have herhair styled and wear jewelry.”Hopkins sued under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, sa in that the company which had sev¬en women among its 662 part¬ners judged her on different cri¬teria than the male candidates, withone partner su gesting she attendcharm school  and another describ¬ing her as “too macho. Hopkins, now a budget planner atthe World Bank, claimed shepresented sufficient evidence toshow the company s decision not topromote her was based in part ondiscriminatory  sex stereotyping, and the company must show thatthe decision to reject her wouldhave been made even if there hadbeen no discri ination.Price Waterhouse argue  thatthere was no discrimination in thefirst place and that Hopkins couldnot show that the comments shecited played any role in the specificdecision in her case. The reason shewas rejected, the company argued,was because she was too abrasiveand difficult to work with.The company said that an em¬ployee  ust prove “sex stereotyp¬in   by  ale partners was the cen¬tral reason; that Hopkins mustshow she would have been made apartner “but for" the discrimination.But Brennan said that an employ- iee must present evidence only that !gender played a “motivating part  inthe employer’s decision in order toforce the employer to prove other¬wise.Supreme Court Ruling inSex-Bias Case Hailed bydmen s Rights Groups2Brennan, joined by Justices Thur-good Marshall, Harry A. Blackmunand John Paul Stevens, said, "Anemployer who objects to aggres¬siveness in wo en but whose po¬sitions require this trait places wo-men in an intolerable and impermis- |sible Catch-22: out of a job if they ;behave aggressively and out of a job jif they don t. Title VII lifts women jout of this bind.  ¦ . !But Justice Sandra Day O Con¬nor, while agreeing with Brennanon much of the case, said that em¬ployees must present direct evi¬dence that discrimination was asubstantial factor’’ in the employ¬er’s decision before an employercan be made to justify it.Justice Byron R. White also con¬curred but said that Brennan wasrequirin  employers to produce ob¬jective evidence, as opposed to tes¬timony, to meet their burden, ofproof.Justice Anthony M. Kennedy,joined in dissent by Chief JusticeWilliam H. Rehnquist and JusticeAntonin Scalia, said the decisionwas  certain to result in confusion rather than clarify already “complexrules for e ployment discrimina- ;tion.  In these cases, Kennedy said, ;the employee should always retain jthe burden of proving that an em- jployer s stated reason for his ac- |tions was not a valid one. !Sarah E. Burns, legal director of jthe NOW Legal Defense and Edu- |cation Fund/said that despite thelack of a majority for a single opin¬ion to back up the ruling, "there wassubstantial agreement among six 'justices that if you have direct ev- .idehce of sex discrimination  thenthe burden would shift. "If  e had jlost the case,” Burns said,  it would ,have been a terrible blow.”In other action yesterday, the 1court rule  5 to 4 that federal .judges do not have the power to .order unwilling lawyers to repre¬sent indigent litigants in civil cases.Brennan, writing for the court inANN B. HOPKINS...sued Price Waterhousea case involving an Iowa attorney ,who was ordered to represent in¬mates in a civil rights suit againstprison officials, said a 1982 feder l .law authorizes judges to "request ¦an attorney to take a case, but itdoes not allow judges to force law¬yers to take on such cases. He wasjoined by the conservative wing ofthe court: Rehnquist, White, Scaliaand Kennedy.Justice Stevens, dissenting mMallard v. U.S. District Court, saidCongress passed the fe eral lawwith the “design of ensuring thepoor litigant equal justice, and saidthe law “should be construed to re¬quire counsel to serve” when re¬quested.  The court’s niggardlyconstruction,” he said, “defeatsCongress’ beneficent purpose.  ,

Court Backs Women on Sex Bias

https://digitalcommons.hollins.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=hopkins-papers

Court Backs Women on Sex Bias

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hollins University