A female associate at King & Spalding alleged the law firm refused to consider her for partnership because of her sex and then pressured her to leave. The firm argued that partnership decisions were outside Title VII because partnership is not an employment term or condition and because applying Title VII would intrude on partners' associational rights. Hishon sued under Title VII, claiming the opportunity to be considered for partnership was part of the employment relationship offered to associates.
Does Title VII apply to a law firm's decision to deny an associate consideration for partnership when that opportunity is alleged to be a term, condition, or privilege of employment?
Under Title VII, an employer may not discriminate with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of sex. If an employer makes consideration for partnership part of the employment relationship, that opportunity may qualify as a term, condition, or privilege of employment covered by Title VII.
Yes. A law firm's opportunity for partnership consideration can be a term, condition, or privilege of employment under Title VII, so the plaintiff stated a valid Title VII claim.
The Court emphasized that Title VII reaches the entire spectrum of employment benefits that an employer offers to employees, not merely wages or current job duties. If the prospect of partnership consideration is part of the bargain between the firm and its associates, denial of that opportunity on the basis of sex is discrimination in employment. The Court rejected the argument that a law firm's internal partnership decision is categorically exempt from Title VII and found no First Amendment associational bar on the pleadings. Because Hishon alleged discriminatory denial of an employment benefit, dismissal was improper.
Hishon established that professional partnerships are not automatically insulated from Title VII when decisions about partnership consideration affect employees' terms or privileges of employment. The case is important for extending antidiscrimination law to promotion-like opportunities in elite professional settings. It is closely related to Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989), which involved sex discrimination in partnership decisions at an accounting firm, and was later informed by Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P. C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003), addressing when shareholder-directors count as employees under federal employment discrimination law.
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) |
Abstain |
P. C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003) |
Abstain |
Enter a case name or citation — get a structured brief where every case it cites is checked against real law.
Try Law Student Workbench →