1. Would you have promoted Ann Hopkins to partner? What decision do the “facts” support?

Being a partner transcends professional excellence and competence. It is a highly respected individual with high moral integrity, especially important in a firm such as Price Waterhouse. Besides directly steering business strategies, partners represent the values of their firm. They operate autonomously and provide leadership inside and outside the firm.

In this respect, Price Waterhouse “consistently placed high premium on a candidate’s ability to deal with subordinates and peers on an interpersonal basis and to promote cordial relations within a firm which is necessarily dependent on team-effort”.

Although instrumental in high profile and profitable contracts, was well regarded for her competence, and often recognized by both clients and partners in her office as an outstanding professional, there were many instances where it was evident that Hopkins was not yet ready to take the leap.

Notorious for being abrasive and overly aggressive with colleagues, despite good intentions no doubt, several partners had counseled her to improve her relations with staff members. Although later evaluations indicate slight improvements in interpersonal skills, Hopkins' shortcomings in this critical area remain a concern.

There were also doubts about her management methods and integrity, as evidenced by the billing discrepancies incident.

Given the expectation of a partner and her qualities, as well as shortcomings, we would not have promoted her.

(214 words)

2. After you read the case, read the APA’s friend-of-the-court brief. In this brief it is argued that sex stereotyping caused sex discrimination that deprived Ann Hopkins of partnership at Price Waterhouse. Do you agree?

While we believe Hopkins should not have been promoted due to areas she needed improvements