Ethical Analysis of The U.s. Supreme Court Decision in Price Waterhouse V. Hopkins

The concerned case; Price Waterhouse vs. Hopkins can be summarized after due case study as under:
The plaintiff was a senior manager in an office of petitioner professional accounting partnership. In 1982, she was proposed for partnership. But her candidacy was put on hold; it was neither denied nor offered for partnership, rather it was held up for reconsideration in the following year. When the partners in her office later refused to reconsider her for partnership and told her that she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled and wear jewelry”. She sued the employee under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 78Stat. 253, as amended, charging that it had discriminated against her on the basis of sex in its partnership decisions. The District Court ruled in respondent`s favor on the question of liability, holding that petitioner had unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex by consciously giving credence and effect to partners’ comments about her that resulted from sex stereotyping or gender bias. The Court of Appeals confirmed the judgment of The District Court. Both the courts held that the employer who has allowed a discriminatory motive to play a part in an employment decision is liable to prove by preponderance and convincing evidence that it would have taken the same decision in the absence of discrimination. The petitioner had no burden to prove what she sues for.
 
 
 
OUTCOME of the case:
A landmark judgment delivered by the District Court and withheld by higher court. It states that the onus of proving no discriminatory motive played role in selection lies with the employer while charges are brought against them by employee for discriminatory treatment with gender bias.
In the case an employee has shown that a discriminatory motive played a part in an employment decision, the employer may avoid a finding of liability only by providing by clear and convincing evidence that it would have made the same decision even if discrimination had hot occurred. The employer appeared to have considered gender in making employment decision. This is contrary to the Federal Civil rights actions. So the burden of proof that the employer would have taken the same decision had there not been any gender bias lies on the employer. Unless they provide clear cut evidence that they would have taken the same decision in the absence of discrimination.
The above has the following references:
. COUNSEL: Kathryn A. Oberly argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the briefs were Paul M. Bator, Douglas A. Poe, Eldon Olson, and Ulric R. Sullivan.James H. Heller argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Douglas B. Huron. *star1* Robert E. Williams and Douglas S. McDowell filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council as amicus curiae urging reversal. Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations by Marsha S. Berzon and Laurence Gold; for the American Psychological Association by Donald N. Bersoff; for the Committees  on Civil Rights, Labor and Employment Law, and Sex and Law of theAssociation of the Bar of the City of New York by Jonathan Lang, Eugene S. Friedman, Arthur Leonard, and Colleen McMahon; and for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund et al. by Sarah E.  Burns, Lynn Hecht Schafran, Joan E. Bertin, John A. Powell, and  Donna R. Lenhoff.Solicitor General Fried, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Solicitor General Merrill, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Clegg, Brian J. Martin, and David K. Flynn filed a brief for the United States as amicus curiae. Brennan, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens, JJ., joined. White, J., post, p. 258, and O’Connor, J., post, p. 261, filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, J., joined, post, p. 279. OPINION: BRENNAN OPINION: JUSTICE BRENNAN announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which JUSTICE MARSHALL, JUSTICE BLACKMUN, and JUSTICE STEVENS join.
 
 
 
Legal Terms Relevant to the Case
1.Gender bias
2. Sex Discrimination   
3. clear and convincing evidence
4. Civil Rights
Gender bias:
Gender Bias can be defined as unequal treatment in employment opportunity (such as promotion, pay, benefits and privileges), and expectations due to attitudes based on the sex of an employee or group of employees. Gender bias can be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit under anti-discrimination statutes. Discriminate with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment
In the related case the plaintiff brought the charge for not considering her candidacy for becoming the partner due to gender bias.
 
__________________________________________________________________________________-
 
Sexual Discrimination   
Women have historically been subjected to legal discrimination based on their gender. Some of this discrimination has been based on cultural stereotypes that cast women primarily in the roles of wives and mothers. In the patriarchal (male-dominated) U.S. society, women have been viewed as the “weaker sex,” who needed protection from the rough-and-tumble world outside their homes. Such beliefs were used as justifications for preventing women from voting, holding public office, and working outside the home. In a culture that portrayed wives as appendages of their husbands, women have often been invisible to the law.
 
The ability of women to use the law to fight sex discrimination in employment, education, domestic relations, and other spheres is a recent development. With the passage of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e et seq.), discrimination in employment based on sex became illegal. In the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. Supreme Court began to wrestle with the implications of sex discrimination in many contexts, often with conflicting or ambiguous results. Employers and social institutions have sought to justify discriminatory treatment for women on the basis of long-held traditions. In some cases the Court has agreed, while in others the justifications have been dismissed as cultural stereotypes that have no basis in fact.
In the concerned case the employer allowed the partners to comment vindicating the sex discrimination.
__________________________________________________________________________________

 
The court, in the related case, held the employer liable to prove with preponderance of evidence that their action would have been the same sans discrimination.
__________________________________________________
Civil Rights
Those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts.
The plaintiff sued the employer in the concerned case for violation of her civil rights.
 

 
In the concerned case let us examine the role of Rights Theory. Rights Theory as the name suggests basically define what is right and what is not. Everyone in the universe has a birth right to everything right. The concerned case may be justified by Right Theory. Since the right of the employee for uniform assessment on the basis of merit was denied for seemingly gender discrimination. The promulgators of this theory focus on this plain truth of life. With the evolution of civilization, the evolution of judgment also set trend based on the wisdom. The wisdom tells us to differentiate between right and wrong. The Right Theory can be classified in two ways: Teleological Ethical Theories and Deontological Ethical Theories. The former focuses on consequences and the later focus on the decision. It is obvious that any right decision results in right consequence. Basing on these basic principal the Right Theory is woven.
 
The Right Theory encompasses a variety of ethical philosophies holding that certain human rights are fundamental and must be respected by other humans. It focuses on each individual member of society without discrimination and his/her rights. Human rights extend to such extent so that it does not infringe other human’s right. Immanuel Kant, the famous 18th century philosopher was the promulgator of human rights. Humans are moral actors free to make choices and are wise to judge the morality of any action by applying his famous Categorical Imperative. Where he said “Act only on that maxim whereby at the same time you can will that it shall become a universal law”. This means, any action should be judged by applying it universally.
 
Let us consider an example; suppose you borrow money even though you know that you will never repay it. If you use the categorical imperative you would state the following rule or maxim: “When I want money, I will borrow money and promise to repay it, even though I know I won’t repay it”.  According to Kant, no one would want this maxim to become a universal law. In that case no one would believe in promises to repay debts and borrowing money would be unheard of. Since neither you get money when you want since you do not pay them back nor you wish to lend as you know that you do not get it back. Thus the maxim fails the categorical imperative test and you are compelled ethically not to promise falsely that you will repay a loan.
 
“Always act to treat humanity whether in yourself or others, as an end in itself, never merely as a means”. This in other words, we may not use or manipulate our fellow member of society to achieve our own goals. Remain blind to their welfare to achieve our happiness. The example above, you are borrowing money with false promise, you know that you are trusted. Had you been not trusted you would have never got the money.  No one would agree to the give you loan. The Right Theory advocates the mutual trusts based on ethics, morality.
 
Modern Rights Theories propose to mix deontological theories. The strict Kantianism’s duties are absolute and sometime create inappropriate results. Such as “One can never lie or kill even though in some circumstances – such as self-defense – it may acceptable to do so”. Modern Right Theories propagates to abide by a moral rule unless a more important rule conflicts with it. As it is said “don’t compromise a person’s right unless a greater right takes priority over it”. Let us take an example. A person has a right not to be lied to. However, if he could save someone’s life by telling a lie such as not telling a criminal the true address of a witness who will testify against him? Whom he may kill, the person is compelled under the modern theory to save the witness’s life by not telling the truth. It protects fundamental rights unless some greater right takes precedence.