A “sex stereotyping” claim arises when an employee alleges that his or her employer engaged in discrimination because the employee failed to adhere to “sex stereotypes” for men or women. This claim has received renewed attention because of the recent 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Prowell v. Wise Business Forms and a broad range of prognostications about that decision’s potential impact. While Prowell certainly expands the scope of “sex stereotyping” claims, it does not completely break from prior precedent in this area.
The so-called “sex stereotyping” claim has its root in the landmark 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. The case involved a female senior manager at an international accounting firm who was eligible for admission into the partnership. The partners gathered information about Hopkins from colleagues and clients with whom she had worked. She was praised as “an outstanding professional,” among several other compliments. In addition to these endorsements, however, other colleagues described Hopkins as “macho,” and stated that to improve her chances for admission into the partnership she should “walk more femininely, talk more femininely, dress more femininely, wear make-up, have her hair styled, and wear jewelry.” The result of this process was that Hopkins’ admission into the partnership was held over for reconsideration the following year.
