Sexual Discrimination
#-4 paragraphs on your personal opinion of the Price Waterhouse v Hopkins 490 US 228, 109 S ct 1775 1989
3-4 paragraphs – do you agree with the court or disagree with the findings – and why
Sexual Discrimination
Ann Hopkins sued Price Water under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253 for not receiving a re-proposal for partnership. Title VII holds that employment decision or reconsideration should be made based on sexual discrimination, and the employer may not only be held liable under Title VII by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the same decision would have been made even if it had not taken gender into account. Therefore, Hopkins had substantial reason to sue Price Water since it was the obligation of the Price Water not to discriminate her on the bases of sexual gender. Additionally, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission holds that Title VII’s prohibition of discrimination of employment based on sex incorporates the prohibition of gender identity and sexual orientation expression with regard to employment. With the impermissible motive having been identified to play a role in the employment decision, it was upon the defendant to provide proof that the employment decision was made based on provided merits and legitimate reasons.
The Supreme Court decision was made based on Title VII conventional rules of civil litigation. The Court held that the Hopkins had proved based on Title VII that gender played a motivation part in the decision of employment, however, it was upon the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision even if it had not taken plaintiff’s gender into conduct in order to avoid a finding of liability (Justia, 2019). In support of the Supreme Court decision, the Plaintiff was able to demonstrate the role of impermissible motive in the employment decision making placing the burden on the defendant to justify that it would have made the same decision in the absence of the unlawful motive.
References
Justia. (2019). Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989). Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/228/
National Federation of Independent Businesses v Sebelius
National Federation of Independent Businesses v Sebelius In this case, the PRO argument is made in the concurring opinion and the CON argument is made in the majority opinion. Next, read the concurring and majority opinions National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius which is included after the case summary. Student Guide for Assigned US […]
