## Facts

- Elizabeth Anderson Hishon joined King & Spalding, an Atlanta law firm organized as a general partnership, as an associate in 1972.
- During recruitment, the firm represented that associates with satisfactory evaluations would be considered for partnership after five or six years on a fair and equal basis; Hishon alleged this was an important inducement to accept employment.
- After six years, the firm considered Hishon for partnership and rejected her; the firm reconsidered her the following year and again rejected her.
- The firm told Hishon to seek other employment and terminated her in December 1979.
- Hishon filed an EEOC charge alleging sex discrimination under Title VII and, after receiving a right-to-sue notice, sued alleging discriminatory denial of partnership consideration and termination.

## Issues

1. Whether Title VII’s ban on discrimination in the “compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” applies to denial of consideration for partnership when that opportunity is part of the associate’s employment relationship.
2. Whether a Title VII complaint may be dismissed at the pleading stage on the categorical theory that partnership selection decisions are outside Title VII.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment dismissing the complaint.
- The Court held that the complaint stated a cognizable Title VII claim because consideration for partnership, when “part and parcel” of the employment relationship, may constitute a “term, condition, or privilege of employment.”
- The Court rejected a categorical exemption for partnership decisions and held dismissal was improper where the alleged facts could entitle the plaintiff to relief.
- The Court did not decide whether partnership itself is “employment,” but held that the firm’s treatment of an associate regarding partnership consideration was covered by Title VII.
- Justice Powell concurred, emphasizing the decision concerned an employment benefit to an associate and should not be read to subject internal partner governance to Title VII in the same manner as ordinary employer-employee relations.

## Legal Principles

- Once an employment relationship exists, Title VII attaches to bar discrimination with respect to “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.”
- A benefit may qualify as a protected “privilege of employment” even if the employer is not contractually obligated to provide it.
- An employment-related benefit that is “part and parcel of the employment relationship” may not be granted or withheld on a discriminatory basis, even if the employer could choose not to provide the benefit at all.
- Courts may dismiss a complaint on a motion to dismiss only when it is clear that no relief could be granted under any set of facts consistent with the allegations.
- Title VII contains no textual or historical basis for a categorical exemption of professional partnerships from its anti-discrimination requirements as applied to employees.

## Conclusion

The Court held that an associate may pursue a Title VII claim when a law firm allegedly denies partnership consideration on the basis of sex, because the opportunity for partnership consideration can be a protected term, condition, or privilege of employment, making dismissal at the pleading stage improper.


Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984)