Connection lost
Server error
Ann B. Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: After a female employee was denied partnership due to sex stereotyping, the court affirmed that Title VII empowers courts to order the firm to admit her as a partner, finding it the only remedy that could make her whole for the discrimination she suffered.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that a court’s broad remedial authority under Title VII includes the power to compel an employer to grant a partnership interest as a “make-whole” remedy for an employee who was discriminatorily denied that promotion.
Ann B. Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Ann Hopkins, a highly successful senior manager at the accounting firm Price Waterhouse, was proposed for partnership. Her performance evaluations praised her significant business development achievements but also criticized her interpersonal skills using gender-stereotyped language. Partners described her as “macho” and suggested she take “a course at charm school.” A supporter advised her to “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” The firm’s Policy Board ultimately placed her candidacy on hold. The Supreme Court previously held that this constituted sex discrimination under a mixed-motive theory and remanded the case. On remand, the district court found that Price Waterhouse failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision absent the discriminatory animus. As a remedy, the district court ordered Price Waterhouse to admit Hopkins to the partnership and award her back pay. Price Waterhouse appealed, challenging both the liability finding and the court’s authority to order partnership as a remedy.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a federal court possess the authority under Title VII to order a professional services firm to admit an employee into its partnership as a make-whole remedy for the firm’s discriminatory denial of that promotion?
Yes. The court affirmed the district court’s order compelling Price Waterhouse to Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam,
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a federal court possess the authority under Title VII to order a professional services firm to admit an employee into its partnership as a make-whole remedy for the firm’s discriminatory denial of that promotion?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the principle that Title VII's "make-whole" purpose authorizes far-reaching Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis n
Legal Rule
Under Section 706(g) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), federal courts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repreh
Legal Analysis
The court's analysis centered on the expansive remedial purpose of Title VII. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisc
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Affirmed that Price Waterhouse failed to prove by a preponderance of