Hishon v. King & Spalding
Headline: Ruling allows associates to sue law firms for sex discrimination in partnership decisions, finding partnership consideration can be part of employment and sending claims back for trial.
Holding: In a single sentence, the Court held that an associate’s opportunity to be considered for partnership can be a term, condition, or privilege of employment under Title VII, allowing suit for sex discrimination in such partnership decisions.
- Allows associates to sue firms for sex discrimination in partnership decisions.
- Treats partnership consideration as part of employment in some circumstances.
- Remands case for trial so claims can be proved, not dismissed on procedural grounds.
Summary
Background
A woman lawyer worked as an associate at a large Atlanta law firm partnership that had more than fifty partners and about fifty associates. She says the firm promised associates that partnership would follow after several years and used that promise to recruit new lawyers. She was denied partnership in 1978 and again in 1979, and her associate employment ended on December 31, 1979. She filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in November 1979 and sued in February 1980; lower courts dismissed her claim.
Reasoning
The Court asked whether being considered for partnership could be a term, condition, or privilege of employment under Title VII. The Court held that if a firm promises to consider associates for partnership, or if partnership consideration is tied to associate status and used to recruit associates, then that opportunity is part of the employment relationship. Title VII therefore bars denying that opportunity because of sex. The Court rejected a categorical exemption for partnership decisions and found no demonstrated constitutional right that would block enforcement here.
Real world impact
The decision lets associates at covered firms bring claims when partnership consideration functions as an employment benefit. Law firms that link partnership opportunity to associate status must consider candidates without regard to sex. The ruling is not a final finding of discrimination; the case is sent back for further proceedings so the claims can be proved at trial.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Powell agreed with the judgment but emphasized that the opinion should not be read to convert ordinary partner-to-partner management decisions into employment relationships subject to Title VII.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?