翻訳と辞書 Words near each other ・ Price targeting ・ Price to Play ・ Price Tower ・ Price Town ・ Price Township ・ Price Township, Monroe County, Pennsylvania ・ Price umbrella ・ Price v Sports Marine Ltd ・ Price V. Fishback ・ Price v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co. ・ Price v. United States ・ Price v. Watkins ・ Price variance ・ Price war ・ Price Waterhouse v Kwan ・ Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins ・ Price's Branch, Missouri ・ Price's Candles ・ Price's Mill ・ Price's model ・ Price's Post Office ・ Price's Raid ・ Price, Jackson County, Wisconsin ・ Price, Maryland ・ Price, North Carolina ・ Price, Quebec ・ Price, South Australia ・ Price, Texas ・ Price, Utah ・ Price, West Virginia Dictionary Lists mini英和辞書 mini和英辞書 Webster 1913 Latin-English FOLDOC Wikipedia English ウィキペディア

翻訳と辞書　辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ] スポンサード リンク Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins ： ウィキペディア英語版 Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins ''Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins'', , was an important decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of employer liability for sex discrimination. The Court held that the employer, the accounting firm Price Waterhouse, must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision regarding employment would have been the same if sex discrimination had not occurred. The accounting firm failed to prove that the same decision to postpone Ann Hopkins's promotion to partnership would have still been made in the absence of sex discrimination, and therefore, the employment decision constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The significance of the Supreme Court's ruling was twofold. First, it established that gender stereotyping is actionable as sex discrimination. Second, it established the mixed-motive framework as an evidentiary framework for proving discrimination under a disparate treatment theory even when lawful reasons for the adverse employment action are also present.〔Goldstein, Leslie. "Gender Stereotyping and the Workplace: Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1989)." 2006. The Constitutional and Legal Rights of Women, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2006. 167-75. Print.''〕 == Background == The plaintiff, Ann Hopkins, claimed she was postponed promotion to partnership at the firm for two years in a row based on sex-stereotyping against her gender nonconformity. Often co-workers described her as aggressive, foul-mouthed, demanding, and impatient with other staff members. During her evaluation, some written comments made by supervisory personnel stated that what Hopkins needed was a "course in charm school." After her promotion was postponed for the first year, Hopkins met with the head supervisor of her department, Thomas Beyer, who told her that to increase chances of promotion she needed to "walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry." Hopkins was well qualified for partnership, and frequently outperformed her co-workers. There were ample examples to show that she was denied promotion based on sex stereotyping. Many male employees said they would not be comfortable having her as their partner because she did not act the way they believed a woman should. Ann Hopkins resigned from the accounting firm when she was rejected for partnership for the second year, and sued Price Waterhouse for violating her rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Both the district court and the federal circuit court of appeals ruled in Hopkins's favor, but there was disagreement on the level of proof (preponderance of evidence, or clear and convincing evidence) employers needed to provide to support their position after facts showed that sexual stereotyping affected terms of employment. The case was granted a writ of ''certiorari'' and heard before the U.S. Supreme Court. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.