8Ed.sol7.4 - CASE 7.4 HOPKINS V. PRICE WATERHOUSE Synopsis...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
CASE 7.4 HOPKINS V. PRICE WATERHOUSE Synopsis In 1983, Ann Hopkins was nominated for promotion to partner with Price Waterhouse. Hopkins, a senior manager in the firm at the time, seemed to have excellent credentials for a partnership position. In fact, of the 88 individuals nominated for partner that year, Hopkins had generated by far the most client revenues for the firm. Hopkins was also unique in that she was the only female among the partner candidates. Unfortunately for Hopkins, she was not promoted to partner and was subsequently told that she had little chance of being promoted in the future. After resigning from the firm in 1984, Hopkins began to question why she was denied the promotion to partner. Eventually, she decided to sue Price Waterhouse, claiming that she had been rejected for partnership on the basis of her gender. After a lengthy trial and several appeals, one of which was ruled on by the Supreme Court, Hopkins was awarded $400,000 in compensatory damages. Price Waterhouse was also ordered to offer Hopkins a partnership position, apparently the first time in U.S. history that a court had handed down such an order. The principal purpose of this case is to focus attention on several issues facing women entering the public accounting profession. Probably the most perplexing of these issues is the difficult task of successfully managing a professional career and having a family. Ann Hopkins, an energetic mother of three small children during her tenure at Price Waterhouse, achieved a good balance between her home life and professional work role. Another challenging issue that women public accountants face is the dominant male culture that pervades many CPA firms. In Hopkins’ case, she was apparently forced to deal with a work environment in which sexual stereotypes dictated how she was expected to behave. In fact, a court ruled in her civil suit that Price Waterhouse had evaluated her as a candidate for becoming a female partner with the firm rather than simply a partner. That is, there was an expectation that female partners and female partner candidates behave in a feminine manner, which was not Hopkins’ style. Hopkins, like many other women in the profession, also had to cope with the lack of female mentors. Finally, early in her career, Hopkins had been forced by the nepotism rule of her original employer, Touche Ross, to leave that firm so her husband would have an opportunity to be promoted to partner.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Case 7.4 Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse Hopkins vs. Price Waterhouse —Key Facts 1. Historically, females and minorities have been under-represented in the large international accounting firms, particularly at the partner level. 2. Early in her career, Ann Hopkins had been forced to resign from Touche Ross because that firm’s nepotism rule precluded her and her husband from both being considered for promotion to partner. 3.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

8Ed.sol7.4 - CASE 7.4 HOPKINS V. PRICE WATERHOUSE Synopsis...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online