reply to the students’ response and not the question  in 150 words minimum and provide 1 reference. Respond to the students response as though you are talking to them, use name 


Read the following hypothetical. Using your issue-spotting skills, analyze the potential exposure to liability of the Accounting Firm based on the actions of the Partnership Review Committee.

Anne is an accountant at a large Accounting Firm. She applied for Partner, but was denied. In their report, the all-male Partnership Review Committee stated that Anne would have a better chance at making Partner if she wore makeup, jewelry, and acted more femininely. Over the past 10 years with the Firm, Anne has received excellent performance evaluations and recently secured a $10M client for the Firm.

Instructions: Please write in essay format.  Include the guidance below in your analysis:

a) Set forth the federal statute and/or theories of law that are applicable.

b) Identify the legal issue(s) that exist and claims that may be brought based on the facts of the case.

c) Apply the facts of the case to the elements of the law/theories of law.

d) Cite a case in the text which is on point with the scenario, or compare and contrast with a case in the text.

e) Provide an action item agenda of specific objectives you would recommend implementing in order to prevent future exposure to liability. Be specific (e.g., if training is a recommendation, describe the type of training in detail).

Students response


The definition of  a partner would be: a legal relation existing between two or more persons contractually associated as joint principals in a business (Merriam-Webster, 2020).  With that being said, it would be completely irrelevant and unlawful for review committee to ask Anne to wear makeup, jewelry and act more feminine.  As a matter of fact, the federal statue that is applicable to this situation would be the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.   

Based on the facts of this case, the legal issues that exist would be gender discrimination and possible hostile environment sexual harassment.  The fact that the review committee is asking her to act more feminine and insists that she wears makeup and jewelry violates many regulations that the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers.  Also, cancelling her partnership despite excellent performance and 10 years of service could have detrimental consequences as well if Anne where able to prove that she was discriminated against based on gender during the hiring process for the role and initiated a claim with the EEOC.  She would also need to provide evidence that gender discrimination was the main focal point of her not receiving the role.    

 Case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 (1989) would be a case that would be on point with the situation at hand.  Ann Hopkins was refused partner with an accounting firm even though she had outstanding performance and secured a $25 million dollar contract with the department of state which was “virtually at partner level” as pointed out by the firm.  She was also able to provide prove that other candidates that applied for the position did not have comparable success in their records as her  (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2019). 

While doing more research on case Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins 490 U.S. 228 (1989), it was found by the district court that Ann’s employer did indeed discriminate, however, she was not entitled to full damages because her poor interpersonal skills also contributed to the decision not to move forward with her.  The U.S. Court of appeals also agreed to this but stated that the employer is not liable if they show clear and convincing evidence.  However, that would be an error.  The supreme court in a 6-3 decision ruled that the burden should have been placed on “preponderance of evidence” and not “clear and convincing” evidence.  At this point, the employer’s testimony was enough to escape liability (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 2020).

The action item agenda that I would implement would be discrimination and sexual harassment workshops.  Not only would these workshops include training, but I would also include multiple descriptive scenarios so that all trainees fully understand the repercussions of discrimination and harassment.  I would also review and revise the regulations within the review committee to ensure that nothing like this scenario happens again as it can create low morale, hostile work environment and possible future legal issues. 


Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2019). Employment Law for Business (Ninth Edition) . New York City : McGraw-Hill Education.

Merriam-Webster. (2020, June 9). Partnership. In dictionary. Retrieved from Merriam-Webster:

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. (2020, June 9). Retrieved from Oyez: