Editing PwC (section)

===Gender employment discrimination===
{{main|Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins}}

In 1989, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] held that Price Waterhouse must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision regarding [[Ann Hopkins]]'s employment would have been the same if [[sex discrimination]] had not occurred. The accounting firm failed to prove that the same decision to postpone Hopkins's promotion to the 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 discrimination|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.<ref>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.</ref> Hopkins's candidacy for partnership had been put on indefinite hold. She eventually resigned and sued the company for [[occupational sexism]], arguing that her lack of promotion came after pressure to walk, talk, dress, and act more "femininely."<ref name="Levit">{{cite book|last1=Levit|first1=Nancy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GUldDkj_mg4C&pg=PA212|title=The Gender Line: Men, Women, and the Law|date=1998|publisher=New York University Press|isbn=9780814751220|page=212|access-date=27 December 2014|archive-date=8 October 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241008151737/https://books.google.com/books?id=GUldDkj_mg4C&pg=PA212|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 1990, a Federal district judge in Washington ordered the firm to make Hopkins a partner. It was the first time in which a court awarded partnership in a professional company as a remedy for sexual or race-based discrimination.<ref name="NYTimes: Partnership in Firm Awarded to Victim of Sex Bias">{{cite news|last1=Lewin|first1=Tamar|date=16 May 1990|title=Partnership in Firm Awarded to Victim of Sex Bias|publisher=NYTimes|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/16/us/partnership-in-firm-awarded-to-victim-of-sex-bias.html|access-date=11 May 2017|archive-date=20 November 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181120015257/https://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/16/us/partnership-in-firm-awarded-to-victim-of-sex-bias.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Following the suit, the firm received media attention due to its discriminatory labor practices towards males as well.<ref>{{cite web|title=Father wins sex discrimination case after request to work part-time rejected|url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fatherhood/11206484/Father-wins-sex-discrimination-case-after-request-to-work-part-time-rejected.html|access-date=4 April 2016|website=Telegraph.co.uk|date=4 November 2014|archive-date=9 September 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180909101535/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/fatherhood/11206484/Father-wins-sex-discrimination-case-after-request-to-work-part-time-rejected.html|url-status=live}}</ref>