Case description
Issue of gender discrimination is an unfortunately common occurrence in the workplace. The problem at hand was even more prominent in the late 1980s when the rigidity of gender stereotypes was even stronger than nowadays. In the Ann Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse case, the issue of gender stereotypes and their effects on the employment opportunities for women was finally addressed as the court’s landmark decision declared that no organization could favor an employee of a specific sex in relation to promotion, employment, or dismissal (Woloch, 2018). During the court session, the importance of maintaining fairness toward employees and avoiding succumbing to gender stereotypes was established as a desirable norm, therefore, setting the standard for handling and preventing sex-based discrimination in the workplace.
For instance, it was asserted the company’s statement concerning the appearance of the plaintiff, namely, the mismatch between the supposed concept of femininity that the organization managers had and the appearance of Ann Hopkins, needs to be addressed.
Indeed, in order to handle the case with greater legitimacy and tactfulness, the organization could have pointed to some of the professional aspects of Ann Hopkins’ performance as opposed to her appearance. Namely, her efficacy as an employee in managing her workplace responsibilities, such as the ability to manage deadlines when implementing projects, could have been addressed. Additionally, the plaintiff’s other workplace competencies, such as her communication skills and the ability to manage workplace negotiations, could have been examined closely in order to determine her legitimacy as a project manager at Price Waterhouse (Woloch, 2018). Instead, the company leader pointed to her failure to align with femininity standards, which represented a clear instance of workplace discrimination.
Hopkins’ decision to sue the company
Examining the case further, one will realize that Ann Hopkins wearing the requested clothes and makeup would not have made a spectacular difference in how she was perceived at the company. Namely, if she had succumbed to the demands and accepted the specified gender expectations, she would have likely been looked down upon, and her opinions would still be dismissed by her male business partners (Woloch, 2018). Moreover, Hopkins’ decision to align with the established gender roles would have likely backfired since her male partners would have likely seen her as far too compliant to become a strong and trustworthy business partner. Specifically, her partners would have viewed her kindness and willingness to sacrifice a certain degree of her freedom to express herself as a weakness.
Therefore, if Hopkins had been promoted, she would still have had to face pervasive gender stereotypes and align with them continuously. Consequently, the outcomes would not have been favorable for her since she would have still lacked the agency and ability to participate in decision-making and partnership with the degree of initiative and authority that she desired. Instead, she would have been relegated to a token female partner that would have been subjected to stereotyping and discrimination as well (Woloch, 2018). Furthermore, her accomplishments, including her promotion, would have been doubted, which would have provided rather strong grounds for rumors that could have eventually destroyed Hopkins’ career.
Therefore, Hopkins’ decision to sue the company and fight for her rights should be seen as the only reasonable solution that could have been taken in this case. Although Ann Hopkins’ choice should not be underestimated since it required a tremendous amount of courage and strength to fight oppression at a time when it was pervasive, it should also be recognized as the only possible route that could have been taken for Ann to win.
Results
Since Ann Hopkins’ case was tried, significant changes have taken place, paving the way for women to gain a greater range of opportunities in the workplace and advance in their careers. Specifically, legal standards prohibiting sex-based discrimination and the prescription of specific gender roles in the workplace setting have been established. As a result, the range of women exploring career opportunities in accounting and becoming business partners has increased by quite impressive margin. For instance, in Canada, approximately 46% of accountants are female; furthermore, reports indicate that a total of 50.3% of audit experts, accountants, and investors in Canada and the U.S. are women (“Women in accounting (Quick take),” 2020). Therefore, significant progress has been observed since Ann Hopkins’ case was resolved in court and since sex-based discrimination in the organizational setting was prohibited.
However, women still have to fight to retain their rights. For instance, the fact that the percentage of women constituting the total of all equity partners in the major accounting companies known as the Big Four has only reached 18.1% shows that the problem of inequality still defines how women are perceived in the business setting. Namely, the presence of stereotypes in the workplace prevents women from exploring career opportunities in large organizations and gaining equal opportunities. For this reason, the fight for women’s rights, particularly, the right to be perceived on the merit of their capabilities and accomplishments as opposed to their appearance and compliance with gender stereotypes, is still taking place in the business environment on a global level.
References
Woloch, N. (2018). Because of sex: One law, ten cases, and fifty years that changed American women’s lives at work by Gillian Thomas. Labor: Studies in Working-Class History, 15(1), 128-129. Web.
Women in accounting (Quick take). (2020). Catalyst. Web.