## Facts

- Ann B. Hopkins, a senior manager at Price Waterhouse, was proposed for partnership in 1982.
- Hopkins had strong performance credentials, including helping secure a major government contract.
- The partnership decision relied substantially on partner evaluations containing both praise and negative comments.
- Several critiques reflected sex stereotypes, including statements that she needed a “course in charm school” and advice that she should act and dress more “femininely” (e.g., walk, talk, dress more femininely; wear makeup, jewelry; style her hair).
- Hopkins’s candidacy was placed on hold and later not reproposed for partnership.
- Hopkins sued under Title VII, alleging she was denied partnership because of sex, including failure to conform to gender norms.
- The district court found the decision was influenced by sex stereotyping and treated the case as mixed-motive; it imposed a same-decision defense requiring clear and convincing evidence, which the employer failed to satisfy.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed, using the same clear-and-convincing standard; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve the burden standard in mixed-motive Title VII cases.

## Issues

1. Whether reliance on gender stereotypes in an employment decision constitutes discrimination “because of” sex under Title VII.
2. In a mixed-motive Title VII case, after the plaintiff shows sex was a motivating factor, what burden and standard of proof the employer must meet to establish it would have made the same decision absent discrimination.

## Decision

- The Court held that employment decisions based on sex stereotypes are discrimination “because of” sex under Title VII.
- The Court held that once a plaintiff shows sex played a motivating part in the decision, the burden shifts to the employer to prove a same-decision defense.
- The Court rejected the “clear and convincing evidence” requirement; the employer’s burden is to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision absent consideration of sex.
- The Court reversed and remanded for application of the preponderance standard to the employer’s same-decision showing.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII prohibits adverse employment decisions made “because of” sex, including decisions that penalize an employee for not conforming to gender stereotypes.
- In mixed-motive Title VII cases, the plaintiff must show that an impermissible factor (such as sex) was a motivating part of the challenged decision.
- Once the plaintiff makes that showing, the employer bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it would have made the same decision even without considering the impermissible factor.
- The same-decision showing is evaluated under ordinary civil proof standards; heightened proof (clear and convincing evidence) is not required.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized sex stereotyping as actionable sex discrimination under Title VII and set a mixed-motive framework in which, after the plaintiff proves sex was a motivating factor, the employer can avoid liability only by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that it would have made the same decision absent discrimination.


Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989)