The employer failed to prove that it would have denied her partnership anyway, and the Court held that constituted sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

During her evaluation, a written comment made by a firm partner stated that what Hopkins needed was a "course in charm school.

The extent of the consideration, and the result of a hypothetical process not involving the discrimination, could be used to "limit equitable relief," but could not serve as a complete defense as to liability.

They first introduced the term "but-for causation" to describe what Price Waterhouse suggests should be the burden of proof, but rejected its validity as an interpretation of the phrase "because of" in Title VII's section on prohibited actions.

[8] The court went on to explain that the employer should be able to escape liability if they can prove that they would have made the same decision, had discrimination not played any role in the process.

When women succeed in jobs that have historically been held by men, they are often labeled as "gay" or "dykes" as a form of harassment, regardless of whether the assertions about their sexual orientation are true.

Women security officers may feel compelled to wear makeup and accept sexual advances from male supervisors in order to avoid being called "fags."

A warehouse worker may endure harassment from male co-workers who call her "boy" and "man hater" because they assume she is a lesbian or transgender simply because of the job she holds.