Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (1988)
- Docket
- 87-1167
- Decided
- 1988-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the Court of Appeals err in requiring the employer to prove it would have made the same employment decision in the absence of discrimination by clear and convincing evidence? Conclusion: Yes in part. In a 6-3 decision, Justice William J. Brennan wrote the plurality opinion reversing the lower court and remanding. The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals applied the right test, but should have placed the burden at “preponderance of the evidence” not “clear and convincing evidence”. On remand, Price Waterhouse would escape liability if it shows it would have denied Hopkins partnership even if she were not a woman. Justice Byron R. White wrote a concurrence, stating that there was no requirement for the employer to submit objective evidence. The employer’s credible testimony alone was enough. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a concurrence, expressing that the Court’s opinion was only a supplement to McDonnell Douglas . Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a dissent, stating that he would stick with the evidentiary standards from McDonnell Douglas . Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia joined in the dissent.