Ann Hopkins Case

A detailed Summary of Ann Hopkins Case

Historically within our society men and women have been brought up toward different social roles and careers. Changes in today's workforce have meant a divergence from the past-accepted roles played by women in the workforce. These stereotypes however, pose challenges for men in today's society, most specifically in jobs that are predominantly considered male oriented. This means they must learn to be comfortable with women who are assertive, as in Ann Hopkins' case, and who do not fit the preconceived notion of being nurturers or supportive.

Upon reviewing the files we believe that Ann Hopkins should be reinstated into Price Waterhouse. In addition, we believe that Ms. Hopkins should be made a full partner into the firm and she should be recompensed for lost wages. This recommendation is based not on Ann Hopkins alleged behavior, but is instead based on the failings of Price Waterhouse to prevent sexual discrimination. In 1984 Ann Hopkins filed suit charging Price Waterhouse with sexual discrimination. This suit claims the reason Ms. Hopkins was not promoted to partner is because she is a woman, and all claims made by the firm regarding her interpersonal skills were biased. As we look at the chronological sequ

Gentile, Mary C. Managerial Excellence Through Diversity. Illinois: Waveland Press,

Partner Hall - " Questions personality. Brings kids into office."

· All partners must attend ongoing diversity workshops. Additionally, the firm must also provide ongoing diversity workshops for all its employees. Culture is learned and we must therefore broaden the perspective of the partners to enhance and accept the changes diversity brings. Furthermore, corporate culture is a top down approach and therefore requires the full support and backing of its top executives in order to be successful.

As was stated in the company background Price Waterhouse in the early 80's had a total of 662 partners within the United States. Of these there was a cumulative total of seven female partners. Partnership is considered a lifetime appointment, as retirement of a partner must come voluntarily or with a 75% majoring vote of the entire partnership. Therefore the candidacy admission process requires that all members of this self-same partnership provide an evaluation/comment on all candidates regardless of whether they have had personal contact or not. Those partners whom have had no contact with the candidate have used third party as their source of evaluation. An example of this can be seen in the summary of comments written on the Short Form and Long Forms. Partner Docter writes "I have no first-hand working relationship with Ann. All my input comes through 3-5 MAS sr mgrs who have worked with her extensively - it is uniformly negative. She is not tech respected & her !

These recommendations will ensure the firm faces the 21st Century better able to value all that diversity brings.

Partner Whelan writes, "...singularly dedicated. Rather unpleasant. Note has held 6 jobs in last 15 yrs, all with outstanding companies. I'm also troubled about her being (having been?) married to a ptr of a serious competitor" recommendation - insufficient, but hold at minimum.

· Removal of all candidate pictures from their biography jackets. The removal of these pictures will ensure there can be no sign of pre-prejudici

Some common words found in the essay are:
Ms Hopkins, Price Waterhouse, Ann Hopkins, Partner Docter, Kelly Five, Analysis Historically, Consequences Hofstede, Partner Beyer, Partner Whelan, Partner MacVeaugh, ann hopkins, price waterhouse, sexual discrimination, ms hopkins, evaluation process, addition believe ms, hopkins partner, recompensed lost, partner firm, firm recompensed, addition believe, hopkins partner firm, believe ms hopkins, ms hopkins partner, partner firm recompensed,

Approximate Word count = 1429
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Miscellaneous