Amicus Curiae Brief — Ezold v. Wolf

f

Ri ‘ ¥ .

No. 92-2013 a‘lpreme Court, Ug

ee oe LD

IN THE JUL 76 1993

Supreme Court of the United States. .,

Ns rake

MASS a KN

.

“ame aate ou em emmaep

OCTOBER TERM, 1993

NANCY O'MARA EZOLD,

Petitioner,

WoLF, BLOCK, SCHORR and SOLIS-COHEN,

Respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the

United States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FIFTY-FIVE

ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER

LINDA J. WHARTON

Counsel of Record

PAMELA L. PERRY

SUSAN FRIETSCHE

CAROL E.. TRACY

WOMEN’S LAW PROJECT

1258. 9th Street, Suite 401

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 928-9801

SETH KREIMER

3400 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

WILSON - EPES PRINTING Co., INC. - 789-0096 - WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

® ost % 60

oot

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES lerseigete ii

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .................... a

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ; 2

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 2

I. THE DECISION BELOW DEPARTS FROM

SETTLED TITLE VII LAW BY EXEMPT-

ING FROM TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL RE-

VIEW AN EMPLOYER’S SUBJECTIVE REA-

SONS FOR DENYING EMPLOYMENT oOpP.-

PORTUNITIES ....... ioisadleastunsidhdabambaierbkcsdeusins 4

THE LAW OF TITLE VII AND THE GLASS

CEILING ACT BY DISREGARDING THE

ATTITUDINAL BARRIERS AND ORGANI-

ZATIONAL BIAS HINDERING THE AD-

VANCEMENT OF UNDERREPRESENTED

GROUPS e 12

MIO in iisnsnsncacrseocs doceeicadeusalsaciaceskcsces.. 20

APPENDIX

Interest of Amici Curiae Organizations <i. la

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases: Page

Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (1985) 20

Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co., 810 F.2d 1477

(9th Cir. 1987) (en banc), cert. denied, 485

U.S. 989 (1988) . 10

Bauer v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037 (10th Cir. 1981) 4

Barnett v. WT. Grant Co., 518 F.2d 543 (4th Cir.

| ee scienasnnod oniiseesatanace ene a eee 10

Davis v. Califano, 613 F.2d 957 (D.C. Cir. 1979) 10

Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983

F.2d 509 (3d Cir. 1992) ae passim

Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 751

F. Supp. 1175 (E.D. Pa. 1990) .... passim

Grano v. Department of Dev., 699 F.2d 836 (6th

Cir. 1983) (per curiam) .. 19

Hishon v. King & Spaulding, 467 U. S. 69 (1984) 19

Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse, 618 F. Supp. 1109

(D.D.C. 1985), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 825

F.2d 458 (D.C. bind 1987), aff’d in part, rev’d in

part, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) ° 16

Jauregui v. City of Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128 (9th

Cir. 1988) 10

Miles v. M.N.C. Corp., 750 F.2d 867 (11th Cir.

BID | ocicvcdccccsnccceusecescucusuuiee canienes eee 10

Muller v. United States Steel Corp., 509 F.2d 92 3

(10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 825 (1975). 10

Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228

(1989) snsbchaaker detest la 19

Rogers v. International Paper Co.., 510 F. od 1340

(8th Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 423 U.S.

809, reinstated with modification on _ other

grounds, 526 F.2d 722 (8th Cir. 1975) 4

Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457 F.2d 348 (5th

Cir. 1972) .. 11

Royal v. Missouri Hw y. & ‘Transp. Comm’n, 655

F.2d 159 (8th Cir. 1981) .. 10

St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 61 U. S.L .W. 4782

(June 22, 1993) 12, 15, 19, 20

Stewart v. General Motors Corp., 542 F.2d 445

(7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 919

(3 5 cf PRO seotnsuncipipnaaetaeced oan eee . 4,10

ili

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Continued

Page

Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450

U.S. 248 (1981) 8

Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977

REGRET Sate Hie co a ne 9

Statutes and Rules:

Glass Ceiling Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, tit.

IT, 105 Stat. 1081 4, 20

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

$§ 2000e-2000e-17 (1981 & Supp. 1993) 5, 9

Pea. m. Civ. FP. G2(@) ........................ ey Aenerae 20

Other Authorities:

ABA Comm. on Women in the Profession, Report

to the House of Delegates (Aug. 10, 1988) 4,13,14

D.C. Law Firms: More Diversity Needed, Legal

Times, Apr. 12, 1993, at 15 3

Claudia MacLachlan & Rita Henley Jensen, Prog-

ress Glacial for Women, Minorities, Nat'l L.J.,

age REI 1 ee 3

Mary F. Radford, Sex Stereotyping and the Pro-

motion of Women to Positions of Power, 41

EY Gee 17

Nadine Taub, Keeping Women in Their Place:

Stereotyping Per Se as a Form of Employment

Discrimination, 21 B.C.L. Rev. 345 (1980)... 17

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, A Report on the Glass Ceiling

Initiative (1991) .....0, 14, 15

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Pipelines of Progress, An

Update on the Glass Ceiling Initiative (1992) 13

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE FIFTY-FIVE

ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

This brief is filed by fifty-five organizations committed

to equal opportunity in the workplace for women and

other underrepresented groups. Amici urge this Court to

grant the writ sought by petitioner, Nancy Ezold.

Amici Women’s Law Project, NOW Legal Defense and

Education Fund, National Women’s Law Center, Wonien’s

Legal Defense Fund, American Medical Women’s Associ-

ation, National Council of Jewish Women. National

Council of Negro Women, American Association of Uni-

versity Women, and Federation of Organizations for Pro-

fessional Women are particularly concerned with eliminat-

ing the pervasive gender- and race-based employment

discrimination that prevents women and minorities from

advancing into the higher ranks of their professions.

Several amici, including the Society for American Law

Teachers, Hispanic National Bar Association, National

Asian Pacific American Bar Association, National Asso-

ciation of Black Women Attorneys, National Association

of Women Lawyers, and the women’s bar associations of

eight states are especially knowledgeable about the bar-

riers to advancement within the legal profession and join

this brief out of their concern that all levels of the legal

profession be open to women and minorities. Amici

Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund. and

the Japanese American Citizens League believe that the

court of appeals’ reasoning, if permitted to stand. may

weaken federal statutory protections against employment

discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and other pro-

tected classifications. Further statements of interest are

set forth in the Appendix.

Amici have the consent of the parties to file this brief.

Letters of consent have been filed with this Court.

9

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The decision below raises issues of grave national im-

portance because it threatens to exacerbate the already

serious difficulties women and minorities face in advanc-

ing into higher levels of employment. The ruling of the

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit promotes contin-

ued discrimination, and thus underrepresentation of

women and minorities in upper-level employment by ex-

empting from traditional judicial review an employer’s

subjective reasons for denying employment opportunities

and by disregarding the attitudinal barriers and organiza-

tional bias hindering the advancement of these groups.

By that ruling, the decision below charts a new course

that contradicts settled Title VII law as established by

this Court and other courts of appeals.

Amici rely on the Statement of the Case and Reasons

for Granting the Petition set forth in the Petition. They

submit this brief to focus the Court’s attention on the

devastating impact the decision below will have on the

ability of women and members of other underrepresented

groups to demonstrate illegal bias in promotion decisions

for professional employment.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

The story of Nancy Ezold’s tenure with the Philadel-

phia law firm of Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen

[““Wolf, Block” or “Firm”) is not merely the story of one

woman’s struggle to achieve promotion in a male-domi-

nated law partnership. Rather, it is the classic story of a

highly qualified woman who was denied promotion while

comparably- or less-talented men were granted promotion.

It is Ms. Ezold’s individual story, and that of countless

others who experience similar discrimination, that ac-

counts for the “glass ceiling’—the vast statistical disparity

between the number of women and minorities entering

the work force and the number being promoted to its

upper levels.

Although women have constituted more than one-

third of law school enrollment for more than a decade

3

and now form 37.1% of the associates at the nation’s

largest law firms, those at the top of the legal profession

continue to be predominantly male. Claudia MacLachlan

& Rita Henley Jensen, Progress Glacial for Women, Mi-

norities, Natl L.J., Jan 27, 1992, at 1, 34, 40 [herein-

after Nat'l L.J. Survey]. As of 1991, only 11.1% of

partners in large law firms were women. /d. at 1. The

record for minorities likewise shows gross underrepre-

sentation at the top ranks despite the fact that minorities

received between 8% and 13% of J.D. and L.L.B. de-

grees awarded since 1981. D.C. Law Firms: More Di-

versity Needed, Legal Times, Apr 12, 1993, at 15. In

1991, African-Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and

Asian-Americans combined accounted for 6.8% of. all

associates, and only 2.4% of partners at large law firms.

Nat'l L.J. Survey, supra, at 1.

The “glass ceiling” phenomenon also infects corporate

America. Based on data from ninety-four Fortune 1000

companies, the Department of Labor found that although

women represented 37.2% of employees, they represented

only 6.6% of managers at the executive level. U.S. Dep't

of Labor, A Report on the Glass Ceiling Initiative 6

(1991) [hereinafter Glass Ceiling Initiative]. Minorities

represented 15.5% of employees and only 2.6% of man-

agers at the executive level. /d.

The Department of Labor linked these statistical dis-

parities not to innocent explanations, but to discrimina-

tory practices:

While some assert that minorities and women have

neither been in the workforce long enough, nor have

the needed credentials, the vast majority of available

research information points to artificial barriers as a

significant cause for why minorities and women have

not advanced further in corporate America.

Id. at 18. The American Bar Association’s Commission

on Women in the Profession concurred, identifying sev-

eral overt and subtle barriers that account for the lack of

full integration and participation of women in the legal

4

profession. ABA Comm. on Women in the Profession,

Report to the House of Delegates 3-4 (Aug. 10, 1988)

[hereinafter ABA Report].

Congress has recognized the disturbing persistence ot

the “glass ceiling”:

(1) despite a dramatically growing presence in the

workplace, women and minorities remain underrep-

resented in management and decisionmaking posi-

tions in business;

(2) artificial barriers exist to the advancement of

women and minorities in the workplace.

Sections 202(a)(1) & (a)(2) of the Glass Ceiling Act

of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, tit. I], 105 Stat. 1081.

A failure to review carefully employment decisions chal-

lenged as biased can only exacerbate the discriminatory

exclusion of women and other underrepresented groups

from the upper-level jobs in America.

I. THE DECISION BELOW DEPARTS FROM SET-

TLED TITLE VII LAW BY EXEMPTING FROM

TRADITIONAL JUDICIAL REVIEW AN EMPLOY-

ER’S SUBJECTIVE REASONS FOR DENYING EM-

PLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

Evaluations for promotion into or performance in

upper-level jobs typically are based on subjective criteria,

because these positions frequently require abilities not

fully measured by objective standards. See, e.g., Bauer

v. Bailar, 647 F.2d 1037, 1046 (10th Cir. 1981); Stew-

art v. General Motors Corp., 542 F.2d 445, 450 (7th

Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S. 919 (1977): Rogers

v. International Paper Co., 510 F.2d 1340. 1345 (8th

Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 423 U.S. 809, reinstated

with modification on other grounds, 526 F.2d 722 (8th

Cir. 1975). The record is undisputed that Wolf, Block

relied on subjective, indeed elusive, criteria to judge Ms.

Ezold. The district court found that partners were asked

to evaluate associates “on the basis of what you expect

of an Associate at this Associate’s level of experience,”

and “regardless of the extent of the partner’s familiarity

»

with the associate’s work.” Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr

& Solis-Cohen, 751 F. Supp. 1175 (E.D. Pa. 1990).

findings of Fact [“FOF”’] 46-49 (Appendix to Petition

[“App.” | 106a-108a). Those subjective, sometimes second-

hand impressions became even more removed from the

associate's actual performance as they were processed and

revised through a hierarchical review by a member of

Wolf, Block’s Associates Committee, the Associates Com-

mittee itself, the Executive Committee and finally, if the

associate was recommended to become a partner, the

partnership. FOF 52-53, 56-57, 59 (App. 108a-110a).

In addition, the district court noted that Wolf, Block had

ongoing debates regarding its “standards” for partnership.

FOF 74, 77. 84, 101 (App. Il4a-115a, 117a, 119a-

120a): see also infra note 1.

The court of arneals agreed with the district court’:

findings that Wolf. Block’s promotion process was marked

by subjectivity and lack of guidance in deciding promo

tion. Fezold vv. Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, 983

F.2d 509. 539 (3d Cir. 1992) (App. 49a). Indeed, the

court «. appeals found: “The differing evaluations the

partners first submit to the Associates Committee are

often based on hearsay and reputation. No _ precise

theorem or snecific objective criterion is employed.” /d.

at 527

/ (App. 41a).

The disagreement between the district court and th

court of appeals arose over how a court should review an

employer’s subjective reasons for denying employment

opportunities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, «2 U.S.C. $$ 2000e to 2000e-17 (1981 & Supp.

1993) [“Title VII]. The district court applied Title

VIf’s time-honored standards for judicial scrutiny and

concluded that Wolf, Block’s application of subjective

criteria to Ms. Ezold was a pretext for discrimination and

resulted in a more exacting standard for Ms. Ezold than

the standard used to judge comparably- or less-talented

men who were promoted to partnership at Wolf, Block.

See FOF 72, 73, 75 (App. 114a-115a); Conclusions of

Law [“COL”] 6, 11 (App. 129a-13la). The district

6

court reached that conclusion not by engaging in its own

assessment of Ms. Ezold’s credentials," but rather by

crediting evaluations by Wolf, Block partners that praised

Ms. Ezold’s legal analytical abilities and criticized the

legal analytical abilities of comparably-situated male as-

sociates.” FOF 60-119 (App. 110a-122a). Judging credi-

bility in this fashion has long been part of the factfinding

function of the trial court. In addition, the district court

found that in her partnership year, Ms. Ezold was rated

“good” in legal analysis on the critical bottom line memo,

the very same rating received by the comparably-situated

male associates. FOF 71, 86, 94, 103, 112, 119 (App.

ll4a, 117a, 119a, 120a-122a); see App. 181a-202a.

Finally, the district court found suspect Wolf, Block’s

determination that Ms. Ezold was not qualified for part-

nership in 1988 in light of the fact that the Firm “offered

1 The court of appeals incorrectly concluded that the district court

substituted its view of appropriate partnership standards for the

standards adopted by Wolf, Block by pointing to the district court’s

finding 121. 983 F.2d at 527-28 (App. 43a). That finding states:

In the magnitude of its complexity, a case may have a senior

partner, a younger partner, and an associate(s) assigned to

the case. Accordingly, requiring the plaintiff to have the abil-

ity to handle on her own any complex litigation within the

firm before she was eligible to be a partner was a pretext.

FOF 121 (App. 122a-123a). This finding did not impose the district

court’s view of partnership. Rather, it correctly recognized the

pretextual nature of the promotion process by highlighting that,

because of Wolf, Block’s undisputed staffing practices, not even

junior partners were called upon to demonstrate the ability to

handle on their own any complex litigation within the firm.

2 The criticism by the court of appeals that the district court

failed to limit its comparison of Ms. Ezold and the successful male

associates to the category of legal analytical ability suggests that

the content of that subjective criterion is precise and specific. Sce

983 F.2d at 528-29 (App. 43a-47a). In fact, however, the district

court’s inquiry took into account the fact that legal analytical

ability cannot be isolated from other individual qualities. Cf. id. at

535-37 (App. 61a, 63a, 66a-67a) (even the court of appeals cited

general comments about how “bright” or “smart” the associate was

or general comments regarding the associate’s writing ability as

evidence of legal analytical ability).

Ti eeeeereeensseenaeeeeeneneenneeeeaeasieaaainmmaanaiiaiamil

meen iia i |

J

| Ms. Ezold a partnership in one year if she took over the

Domestic Relations Division of the Litigation Depart-

ment,” particularly where the “additional year was not

for purposes of giving any additional training or experi-

ence.” FOF 133-34 (App. 125a).

The court of appeals reversed the district court’s find-

ing of pretext by reevaluating the evidence and sub-

Sstituting its own factual findings and credibility deter-

minations for those of the district court. It justified this

usurpation of the district court’s factfinding function by

mandating deference to the subjective impressions of the

employer:

Were the factors Wolf considered in deciding which

associates should be admitted to the partnership ob-

jective, as opposed to subjective, the conflicts in

various partners’ views about Ezold’s legal analytical

ability that this record shows might amount to no

more than a conflict in the evidence that the district

court as factiinder had full power to resolve.

983 F.2d at 529 (App. 47a).

Although the court of appeals denied that it was in-

sulating from judicial review the subjective evaluations of

professional employees, see id. at 527, 531 (App. 42a,

51a), the effect of its decision was to do just that. For

example, it demanded that the district court credit the

evaluations of all partners equally, even though the dis-

trict court had the benefit of hearing their testimony.®

In addition, the court of appeals rejected the reasonable

inferences drawn by the district court and instead deferred

3 The court of appeals challenged the district court’s decision not

to credit criticisms by partner Fiebach which were gender-biased

absent a specific finding regarding Fiebach’s gender-bias. Jd. at

532 n.22 (App. 54a). In addition, the court of appeals credited the

criticisms of Ms. Ezold’s legal analytical ability by partners Arbit-

tier, Kurland and Schwartz without acknowledging what the trial

court found to be gender-biased treatment of Ms. Ezold by each of

these partners. /d. at 516-19, 532-33 537, 541, 543-47 (App. 14a-

21a, 54a-55a, 68a, 77a-78a, 82a, 85a-86a, 88a-89a).

a EEO Oe

8

to the conclusions advocated by Wolf, Block.* In these

ways, the court of appeals insulated from judicial scrutiny

Wolf, Block’s subjective impressions of Ms. Ezold.’ The

court of appeals’ legitimate concern about “ ‘unwarranted

invasion or intrusion’ into matters involving professicnal

judgments about an employee’s qualifications for promo-

tion within a profession,” caused the court to deny Ms.

Ezold her right to legitimate, and traditional, judicial

scrutiny of Wolf, Block’s decision on her promotion to

partner. 983 F.2d at 527.

A deferential standard of review for subjective employ-

ment decisions of professionals has no legal foundation.

It conflicts with the language of Title VII, a decision of

* Without challenging the accuracy of the district court’s finding

that Ms. Ezold was equal to the comparably-situated male associates

with regard to their ratings on legal analysis in the Associates Com-

mittee’s bottom line memo for their partnership year, the court of

appeals chose instead to rely on the partners’ overall recommenda-

tions with regard to partnership. 7d. at 519-20, 534-38 (App. 23a-

24a, 59a-63a, 65a-69a). As an initial matter, focusing on the over-

all rating violates the court of appeals’ admonition to focus only on

the articulated reason for Ms. Ezold’s rejection, deficiency in her

legal analysis. 7d. at 528-29 (App. 43a-46a). In addition, several

of the partners who criticized the legal analytical abilities of the

successful male associates nonetheless recommended them for part-

nership. /d. at 534, 536-37 (App. 59a, 63a, 67a-68a).

Moreover, the court of appeals never addressed the district court’s

finding that the Firm was satisfied with Ms. Ezold’s credentials in

1988 when it offered her the partnership in Domestic Relations.

5 The magnitude of the hands-off approach adopted by the court

of appeals is demonstrated by the court’s refusal to review Wolf,

Block’s evaluations of Ms. Ezold, regardless of their accuracy:

“The firm may have been wrong in its perception of Ezold’s legal

analytic ability and, if so, its decision to pass over Ezold would be

unfair, but that is not for us to judge.” Jd. at 533 (App. 57a);

see id. at 531, 542 (App. 5la-52a, 80a). That pronouncement is

flatly contradicted by this Court: “that a court may think that the

employer misjudged the qualifications of the applicants does not

in itself expose him to Title VII liability, although this may be

probative of whether the employer’s reasons are pretexts for dis-

crimination.” Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450

U.S. 248, 259 (1981).

9

this Court, and the decisions from the courts of appeals

of nine other circuits.

Title VII provides no support for exempting subjective

decisions from judicial review. Indeed, Congress dele-

gated to the federal courts the power to enforce Title

VII’s mandate that employers are prohibited from refus-

ing to promote their employees because of sex. 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-5(f) (1981 & Supp. 1993). The

court below subverts that delegation by insulating from

judicial review employment decisions based on subjective

criteria.

In addition, the decisions of this Court provide no sup-

port for treating subjective decisions deferentially. In

1988, this Court faced an analogous question: whether

to insulate ‘rom the application of disparate impact scru-

tiny the subjective decisions of employers. Watson v.

Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988). The

employer in Watson argued that the exemption from dis-

parate impact scrutiny was justified because of the avail-

ability of scrutiny under conventional disparate treat-

ment theory. /d. at 989. This Court refused to immunize

Subjective decisions from judicial review under the dis-

parate impact theory, fearing that employers would in-

sulate themselves from liability under that theory by mak-

ing their employment decisions based on at least one sub-

jective factor. Jd. at 989-90.

The decision of the court of appeals here goes a step

further than even the employer in Watson. It insulates

from the application of disparate treatment scrutiny the

subjective decisions of Wolf, Block. Just as it rejected

the proposed exemption for subjective decisionmaking in

Watson, this Court should correct the court of appeals’

departure from the law of Title VII.

To the extent that other courts of appeals have recog-

nized any distinction between judicial scrutiny of sub-

jective versus objective employment criteria, they have

acknowledged that the more elusive and less exacting na-

ture of subjective criteria make them a ready vehicle for

eee

10

camouflaging illegal discrimination—both conscious and

unconscious. Indeed, the courts of appeals for nine cir-

cuits have required even more exacting scrutiny of sub-

jective criteria in recognition of this practical reality.

See, e.g., Jauregui v. City of Glendale, 852 F.2d 1128,

1136 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[T]his circuit has cautioned

‘that subjective practices are particularly susceptible to

discriminatory abuse and should be closely scruti-

nized.’”’) (quoting Atonio v. Wards Cove Packing Co.,

810 F.2d 1477, 1481 (9th Cir. 1987) (en banc), cert.

denied, 485 U.S. 989 (1988)); Miles v. M.N.C. Corp.,

750 F.2d 867, 871 (11th Cir. 1985) (‘‘[S]ubjective

evaluations involving white supervisors provide a ready

mechanism for racial discrimination.’’); Grano v. De-

partment of Dev., 699 F.2d 836, 837 (6th Cir. 1983)

(per curiam) (“[T]he legitimacy of the articulated reason

for the employment decision is subject to particularly

close scrutiny where the evaluation is subjective and the

evaluators themselves are not members of the protected

minority.” ); Royal v. Missouri Hwy. & Transp. Comm'n,

655 F.2d 159, 164 (8th Cir. 1981) (“When the evalua-

tion is in any degree subjective and when the evaluators

themselves are not members of the protected minority,

the legitimacy and nondiscriminatory basis of the articu-

lated reason for the decision should be subject to particu-

larly close scrutiny by the trial judge.”); Davis v. Cali-

fano, 613 F.2d 957, 965 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (“Appel-

lee’s promotion procedures are highly suspect and must

be closely scrutinized because of their capacity for mask-

ing unlawful bias.”); Stewart v. General Motors Corp.,

542 F.2d 445, 450 (7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433

U.S. 919 (1977) (“While some subjectivity is inevitable

in filling jobs of an executive character, the total lack of

objective standards . . . could only reinforce the preju-

dices, unconscious or not, which Congress in Title VII

sought to eradicate as a basis for employment.” ); Barnett

v. W.T. Grant Co., 518 F.2d 543, 550 (4th Cir. 1975)

(“Nonobjective hiring standards are always suspect be-

cause of their capacity for masking racial basis [sic].”);

Muller v. United States Steel Corp., 509 F.2d 923, 927-

11

28 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 825 (1975)

(“Personal and subjective criteria encourage and foster

discrimination.” ); Rowe v. General Motors Corp., 457

F.2d 348, 359 (Sth Cir. 1972) (“All we do today is

recognize that promotion transfer procedures which de-

pend almost entirely upon the subjective evaluation and

favorable recommendation of the immediate foreman are

a ready mechanism for discrimination against Blacks

much of which can be covertly concealed. . . .”).

Without distinguishing or analyzing this multitude of

cases calling for more exacting scrutiny of the subjective

decisions concerning a candidate from an underrepre-

sented group when evaluated by members of the majority

group, the court below created a contrary standard requir-

ing more deferential trial court examination of the sub-

jective impressions of Ms. Ezold by the predominantly

male law partnership.° This standard of deferential scru-

tiny will encourage employers to rely even more heavily

on subjective criteria to avoid traditional review. This

is ironic since subjective evaluations lend themselves more

easily to intentional and unintentional personal biases.

More importantly, this standard will severely diminish the

ability of women and other underrepresented groups to

demonstrate pretextual discrimination where employers

rely on subjective reasons for denying employment oppor-

tunities—a common occurrence for upper-level employ-

ment. This departure from the holding of this Court and

the holdings of other courts of appeals requires this

Court’s review.

"FOF 132 (App. 124a). Only five of the Firm’s 107 partners

were female. App. 180a. Moreover, in the year Ms. Ezold was con-

sidered for partner, only one female partner was on the ten-person

Associates Committee and the Executive Committee was all male.

App. 178a-179a.

12

II. THE DECISION BELOW CONTRAVENES THE

LAW OF TITLE VII AND THE GLASS CEILING

ACT BY DISREGARDING THE ATTITUDINAL

BARRIERS AND ORGANIZATIONAL BIAS HIN-

DERING THE ADVANCEMENT OF UNDERREPRE-

SENTED GROUPS.

Many of the obstacles impeding Ms. Ezold’s progress

at Wolf, Block have been identified as classic barriers

hindering the advancement of underrepresented groups.

The district court recognized these barriers as evidence of

gender bias. This Court has emphasized the critical im-

portance of weighing, with all the other evidence, the types

of attitudinal and organizational bias discovered by the

district court because evidence that the employer’s reason

for denial of an employment opportunity is unworthy of

credence does not alone require the factfinder to conclude

that the reason was a pretext for discrimination. St.

Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 61 U.S.L.W. 4782, 4784

(June 22, 1993). By contrast, the court of appeals here

required each instance of discriminatory treatment to

establish on its own that the Firm’s decision to deny Ms.

Ezold promotion to partner was discriminatory, 983 F.2d

at 539-47 (App. 73a-93a). Viewing each instance of sex

bias in isolation, the court of appeals reversed the district

court’s findings of evidentiary value in these incidents,

concluding that there was “no evidence of sex discrimina-

tion here.” 983 F.2d at 547 (App. 93a).

Among the barriers identified by the district court as

impeding Ms. Ezold’s progress at Wolf, Block was the

discriminatory presumption against her, originating even

before she was hired, when the Chairman of the Litiga-

tion Department told her “it would not be easy for her at

Wolf, Block because . . . [among other things] shé was a

woman.” FOF 18 (App. 10la). Another partner re-

inforced the evidence that the Firm had an unduly nega-

tive perception of Ms. Ezold, by first praising her work

and then stating: “I sense some old perceptions—baggage

—which should be revisited,” and Ms. Ezold needs

“‘[bjetter p.r. [public relations].’” FOF 65 (App. 112a).

13

See FOF 33 (App. 104a). Such findings represent classic

evidence of sex bias in the workplace.

The American Bar Association’s Commission on

Women cited this differential presumption, that “women

must prove their competence, while men must prove their

incompetence” as one of the “[a]ttitudinal barriers

which lead to . . . rejection [of women] in the work-

place.” ABA Report, supra, at 5. Indeed, “[w]omen

reported that they are often treated with a presumption

of incompetence, to be overcome only by flawless per-

formance, whereas they see men attorneys treated with a

presumption of competence overcome only after numerous

significant mistakes.” Jd. at 12; see also U.S. Dep't of

Labor, Pipelines of Progress, An Update on the Glass

Ceiling Initiative 35 (1992) (Women professionals re-

ported ‘that they were not held to the same performance

measures as men and believed that they had to work twice

as hard.”’).

This differential response to male deficiencies was iden-

tified by the district court as a factor that infected Wolf,

Block’s evaluation process. Indeed, criticisms of male em-

ployees were sometimes accompanied by a statement ex-

cusing the behavior or suggesting that the deficiency was

not determinative. FOF 81, 90, 96, 107, 108, 116, 117

(App. 11l6a, 118a-120a, 122a). For example, despite

skepticism about how smart one male associate was, the

evaluating partner said, “[nJevertheless, I think he has

potential.” FOF 90 (App. 118a). In addition, after very

critically evaluating a male associate, one partner wrote:

“IT am giving him a second chance.’ FOF 116 (App.

i22a). By contrast, the court of appeals found criti-

cisms of Ms. Ezold to be iron-clad judgments of her abil-

ity despite recognition by several partners that the evalua-

tions were unfair in light of the presumption against her

when she was hired and the “inferior” work assignments

she was given. FOF 30, 32-38 (App. 103a-105a).

The district court also singled out as an independent

barrier to Ms. FEzold’s progress at the Firm the informal

14

and discriminatory assignment procedures at Wolf,

Block ‘ that resulted in the assignment to Ms. Ezold of

“inferior” work opportunities. FOF 32-37, 40, 42, 66, 68

(App. 103a-106a. 112a-113a). The pervasiveness of

this informal procedure was evident where, despite the fact

that Ms. Ezold was the only associate to volunteer to work

on a preliminary injunction and was therefore initially

assigned to the case, “within an hour Mr. Arbittier, with-

out explanation, had reassigned it to a male associate.”

FOF 29 (App. 102a-103a).°

Discriminatory assignment policies are another notori-

ous barrier to women’s advancement in the private prac-

tice of law. ABA Report, supra, at 11 (‘‘Witnesses also

reported that women are receiving different types of case

assignments from those given to men, and are sometimes

steered away from major litigation [and] commercial

matters ....). See also Glass Ceiling Initiative, supra,

at 5 (“[C]areer enhancing assignments . . . were often not

as available to minorities and women.”’’).

Moreover. the district court found that Wolf, Block’s

assignment process resulted in Ms. Ezold working on

smaller matters with only a limited number of partners,

despite the Firm’s commitment “‘to try to give her the

assignments that will enable her to attempt to build a

place for herself.” FOF 35-40 (App. 104a-105a); see

7 The court of appeals determined that the discrimination Ms.

Ezold faced with regard to assignments at Wolf, Block ‘‘may have’”’

resulted from her academic credentials, rather than sex discrimina-

tion. 983 F.2d at 540 (App. 75a). The court reached this conclu-

sion without disturbing the district court’s findings that Seymour

Kurland, the partner in charge of assignments, told Ms. Ezold

when she was hired that “she did not fit the Wolf, Block mold since

she was a woman, had not attended an Ivy League school, and had

not been on law review” and that partner Schwartz told Ms. Ezold

that the Firm did not want to hear her view that a case assignment

problem occurred because she was a woman. 983 F.2d at 541, 545

(App. 77a, 86a).

5‘ The court of appeals rejected the discriminatory impact of this

episode by crediting the trial testimony of partner Arbittier giving

a gender-neutral reason for reassigning the case for which only

Ms. Ezold had volunteered. 983 F.2d at 541 (App. 77a).

15

FOF 24-27, 30 (App. 102a-103a). This more restricted

exposure classically impedes the ability of members of

underrepresented groups to succeed. See Glass Ceiling

Initiative, supra, at 18, 21-22 (women denied exposure

and mentoring opportunities were impeded in their career

advancement ).

Another example of discriminatory treatment visited

upon Ms. Ezold occurred after the Firm rejected her bid

for partner in the litigation department. At that point,

Wolf, Block attempted to steer Ms. Ezold into domestic

relations practice, an area that the Firm regarded as less

complex than commercial practice. FOF 137-38 (App.

125a-126a): see FOF 41 (App. 105a-106a). This prac-

tice of steering women away from prestigious practice

areas also traditionally accompanies women’s employ-

ment. See Glass Ceiling Initiative, supra, at 16.

Additionally, in reviewing the evidence supporting a

finding of discrimination, the district court appropriately

noted that Wolf, Block was a “predominantly male part-

nership.” The almost non-existent number of women

partners decisionmakers may legitimately influence the

factfinder to find discrimination. Indeed, this Court in

Hicks suggested the converse—that the more representa-

tive number of minority employees, including minority

decisionmakers, was an appropriate consideration leading

the factfinder in that case to find no discrimination. St.

Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 61 U.S.L.W. at 4784 n.2.

The court of appeals, by contrast, refused to allow the

statistically few women partners to influence the fact-

finder, ruling such disparity to be neither “probative” nor

“material.” 983 F.2d at 543 (App. 81a-82a).

Moreover, such significant underrepresentation of

women should provoke a reassessment of practices and

policies. Glass Ceiling Initiative, supra, at 15, 22 (citing

companies that fail to audit and oversee their equal em-

ployment opportunity progress). Far from prompting ap-

propriate self-examination, the court of appeals’ response

encourages complacency.

’ See supra note 6.

16

Finally, the district court found that several of the

firm’s standards were infected with sex stereotyping. For

example, the court found:

The plaintiff was criticized for being “very demand-

ing’ and was expected by some members of the Firm

to be nonassertive and acquiescent to the predomi-

nately male partnership. Her failure to accept this

role was a factor which resulted in her not being

promoted to partner. However several male assoc!

ates who had been evaluated negatively for lacking

sufficient assertiveness in their demeanor were made

partners.

FOF 132 (App. 124a-125a);"" see FOF 120 (App.

122a); COL 12 (App. 13la). The potential for stereo

typing was exacerbated by Wolf, Block’s process of re

quiring evaluations by all partners of all associates, re-

gardless of their first-hand knowledge of that associate’s

work. The court of appeals condoned the process of

evaluating associates where the partner “had little contact

and perhaps knew nothing about the associate beyond the

associate’s general reputation” because it “applied equally

to female and male associates.” 983 F.2d at 532 (App.

53a). The court of appeals failed to acknowledge that

despite the purportedly equal application, that policy

would likely have a more negative effect on the evalua-

tions of women in the context of a predominantly male

partnership, where women lawyers, particularly ones

deemed successful enough to be granted partnership, were

unusual. See App. 180a. As the district court cautioned

in Hopkins vy. Price Waterhouse, 618 F. Supp. 1109,

1119 (D.D.C. 1985), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 825 F.2d

458 (D.C. Cir. 1987), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 490

U.S. 228 (1989):

The evidence indicates that Price Waterhouse should

have been aware that women being evaluated by male

10 The court of appeals dismissed the impact of that finding by

crediting the trial testimony of partner Rosoff that “he disregarded

the criticisms of her handling of administrative matters from earlier

years as ‘ancient history.’”’ 983 F.2d at 544 (App. 85a)

17

partners might well be victims of discriminatory

stereotypes. Yet the firm made no efforts to make

partners sensitive to the dangers, to discourage com-

ments tainted by sexism, or to investigate comments

to determine whether they were influenced by stereo-

types.

See, e.g., Mary F. Radford, Sex Stereotyping and the

Promotion of Women to Positions of Power, 41 Hastings

L.J. 471, 486-503 (1990) (describing how sex stereo-

typing creates subtle obstacles to women’s advancement);

Nadine Taub, Keeping Women in Their Place: Stereo-

typing Per Se as a Form of Employment Discrimination,

21 B.C.L. Rev. 345, 353-59 (1980) (identifying social

science data supporting prevalence of sex stereotyping).

The court of appeals refused to acknowledge the gender-

based nature and the discriminatory impact of each of

these classic barriers to advancement of women by, once

again, usurping the valid factfinding function tradition-

ally delegated to the district court. Indeed, the court of

appeals dismissed evidence of many of these classic bar-

riers by crediting the gender-neutral explanations offered in

the trial testimony of the Firm’s partners. See supra notes

§ & 10. Moreover, the court of appeals either rejected *"'

11 The district court found a relationship between the initial

negative presumption regarding Ms. Ezold, her failure to get

career-enhancing assignments, and critical evaluations of her work

performance resulting in her denial of partnership. For example,

the district court cited to comments by Mr. Magarity:

[T jhe perception that she is not able to grasp complex issues

or handle complex cases ... appears to be a product of how Sy

Kurland viewed Nancy’s role when she was initially hired.

For the first few years Sy would only assign Nancy to non-

complex matters, yet, at evaluation time, Sy, and some other

partners would qualify their evaluations by saying that Nancy

does not work on complex matters. Nancy was literally trapped

in a Catch-22. The Chairman of the Litigation Department

would not assign her to complex cases, yet she received negative

evaluations for not working on complex cases.

FOF 83 (App. 103a-104a). See FOF 82, 34, 35, 37, 42, 66, 68 (App.

103a-106a, 112a-1138a). Moreover, the district court acknowledged

18

Or minimized’* the impact of these classic barriers

despite record evidence to support impact. See supra

note 7. For example, the court of appeals dismissed

the impact that partner Kurland’s sexist remarks ** had on

Ms. Ezold’s partnership determination, noting that Mr.

Kurland left the Firm the year before Ms. Ezold was

considered for partner. 983 F.2d at 545, 547 (App. 87a,

91a). Such a dismissal cannot stand, however, where

even the court of appeals credited criticisms by Mr. Kur-

land of Ms. Ezold’s legal analytical ability in supporting

its decision to reverse the district court’s finding of pre-

text. 983 F.2d at 518, 532 (App. 18a, 55a). Once

again, the court of appeals reversed the well-grounded

that the informal and discriminatory assignment process resulted

in Ms, Ezold working on smaller matters and with only a limited

number of partners—a factor that hurt her chances for partnership

at the Firm. FOF 24-27, 30, 39-40 (App. 102a-108a, 105a). With-

out disputing this record evidence, however, the court of appeals

simply reversed the district court’s findings that Wolf, Block’s

presumption against Ms. Ezold when she was hired and the dis

criminatory assignment process affected the Firm’s decision with

regard to partnership. 983 F.2d at 541, 542, 545, 547 (App. 76a-

77a, 79a-80a, 87a-88a, 9la-92a).

12 The district court found that Wolf, Block’s reaction to legiti-

mate women’s issues was not gender-neutral. For example, Ms.

Ezold was viewed negatively for criticizing the Firm’s treatment of

its paralegals, all of whom were female. FOF 31, 128-30 (App. 103a,

124a); COL 12 (App. 13la). Mr. Fiebach, however, was not criti-

cized for raising the issue of part-time attorneys, “ ‘well known to

be a women’s issue.’”” FOF 130 (App. 124a). Moreover, the district

court found that partner Schwartz negatively evaluated Ms. Ezold

with: “ ‘her judgment can be clouded by over sensitivity to what

she misperceives as women’s issues.’” FOF 128 (App. 124a); see

FOF 127, 122 (App. 1238a); COL 12 (App. 13la). The court of

appeals minimized the impact of the Firm’s discriminatory and

defensive response to Ms. Ezold’s discussion of women’s issues,

finding such evidence to be “of marginal value in supporting the

district court’s finding of pretext.” 983 F.2d at 548 (App. 83a)

18 The court of appeals refused even to acknowledge the sex

biased nature of Mr. Kurland’s comments, referring to them in more

sex-neutral terms: “crude and unprofessional,” “reflecting! un-

favorably on Kurland’s personality or his views” and “inappropri-

ate.”” 983 F.2d at 547 (App. 91la-92a).

19

findings and inferences of the district court by deferring

to the subjective opinions of Wolf, Block. Jd. at 547

n.38. Such deference, particularly by an appellate court,

runs contrary to the law of Title VII and the Glass Ceil-

ing Act of 1991.

Congress’ efforts to equalize employment opportunity

began almost three decades ago with the passage of Title

VII. From that time, Title VII has prohibited discrimi-

nation because of race, color, religion, sex, or national

Origin at all levels of employment, not just entry levels.

Indeed, this Court has interpreted Title VII to prohibit

promotion to partnership in private law firms or profes-

sional accounting firms on the basis of sex. Price Water-

house v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989); Hishon v. King

& Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984). The decision below

will further delay the realization of equal employment

opportunity for all by disregarding the discriminatory

barriers that impede the advancement of women and

other underrepresented groups to upper-level employment.

The role of the factfinder in discerning employment

discrimination stemming from attitudinal and organiza-

tional bias was emphasized in St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v.

Hicks, 61 U.S.L.W. at 4784. In the case at bar, the court

of appeals reversed the findings of the factfinder relating

to both the pretextual nature of the employer’s proffered

explanation for the denial of promotion, and the evidence

of sex bias in the attitudes of participating partners and

in the promotion process itself. This reversal was sup-

ported only by unwarranted and improper deference to

the employer, not by legitimate appellate review. In-

deed, this Court in Hicks firmly established that the de-

cision regarding whether discrimination was proved is a

decision to be made by the finder of fact:

That the employer’s proffered reason is unpersuasive,

or even obviously contrived, does not necessarily

establish that the plaintiffs proffered reason of race

is correct. That remains a question for the factfinder

to answer, subject, of course, to appellate review-

which should be conducted . . . under the ‘clearly

20

erroneous’ standard of Federal Rule of Civil Pro-

cedure 52(a), see, e.g., Anderson v. Bessemer City,

470 U.S. 564, 573-76.(1985).

St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 61 U.S.L.W. at 4788.

The decision of the court of appeals directly contradicts

those standards of appellate review appropriate in Title

VII cases.

Finally, in recognition of the artificial barriers that im-

pede the advancement of women and minorities in the

workplace, Congress passed the Glass Ceiling Act of

1991 ** to identify and remove such barriers. That Act

reflects Congress’ commitment to eliminate the discrimi-

natory underrepresentation of women and other groups at

the upper levels of employment, a commitment which is

undercut by the deferential standard of judicial review

mandated by the decision below.

CONCLUSION

The decision below represents a disturbing departure

from settled Title VII law that threatens to perpetuate

discrimination against women and minorities in upper-

level employment in America. Amici, therefore, respect-

fully urge this Court to grant the writ sought by petitioner.

Respectfully submitted,

LINDA J. WHARTON

Counsel of Record

PAMELA L. PERRY

SUSAN FRIETSCHE

CAROL E. TRACY

WOMEN’S LAW PROJECT

125 S. 9th Street, Suite 401

Philadelphia, PA 19107

(215) 928-9801

SETH KREIMER

3400 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19104

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

14 Pub. L. No. 102-166, tit. II, 105 Stat. 1081.

APPENDIX

la

APPENDIX

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ORGANIZATIONS

The WOMEN’S LAW PROJECT (WLP) is a non-

profit, feminist legal advocacy organization located in

Philadelphia. Founded in 1974, WLP works to abolish

discrimination and injustice and to advance the legal and

economic status of women and their families through

litigation, public education. and individual counseling.

During the past nineteen years of its existence, WLP’s

activities have included extensive work in the area of sex

discrimination in employment.

WLP has a strong interest in the eradication of dis-

crimination against women in the workplace and the

availability of strong and effective remedies under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. as amended. The

Women’s Law Project believes that the decision below

will have a devastating impact on the ability of women

and other underrepresented groups to demonstrate illegal

bias in professional employment decisions.

The AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY

WOMEN (AAUW) is a national Organization dedicated

to working for education and equity for women and

girls. AAUW’s 100,000 members are committed to

achieving equal opportunities and fair treatment for

women in the workplace.

The AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY

WOMEN, PENNSYLVANIA DIVISION (AAUW-PA),

is an affiliate of AAUW, a national nonprofit organiza-

tion of graduates promoting equity for women, education

and self-development over the life span, and positive socie-

tal change. Pennsylvania has seventy-six branches state-

wide with a membership of 6,500.

AAUW-PA recognizes that equal access to opportu-

nity, pay equity, and the elimination of workplace gender

discrimination, as equity issues, are key to the economic

survival of women. AAUW-PA joins with the plaintiff in

2a

Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen in seeking

the elimination of gender barriers to professional ad-

vancement.

The AAUW LEGAL ADVOCACY FUND provides

funding and a support system for women seeking judicial

redress for sex discrimination in colleges and universities.

Since 1981, the AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund has sup-

ported twenty-two sex discrimination lawsuits against in-

stitutions of higher education.

The AMERICAN MEDICAL WOMEN’S ASSOCIA-

TION, INC. (AMWA) is a nonprofit organization of

13,000 women physicians and medical students, founded

in 1915 and representing women in all specialties of med-

icine and diverse career roles. One of AMWA’s primary

missions is to promote career development for women in

medicine. AMWA strongly opposes gender discrimination

which interferes with an individual’s ability to work ef-

fectively within her/his profession.

The ASIAN AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION OF

NEW YORK (AABANY) is a professional membership

organization of Asian American and other attorneys con-

cerned with issues affecting the Asian American commu-

nity, including anti-Asian violence and civil rights.

AABANY has sought not only to encourage the profes-

sional growth of its members but also to serve the Asian

American community through advocacy.

Founded in 1974, the ASIAN AMERICAN LEGAL

DEFENSE AND EDUCATION FUND (AALDEF) is

a civil rights organization that addresses critical issues

facing Asian Americans through community education,

advocacy, and litigation. Program priorities for this year

are employment and labor rights, voting rights, immigrant

vights, the elimination of anti-Asian violence and environ-

nental racism, and redress for Japanese Americans in-

terned during World War If. AALDEF supports equal

opportunity for all including individuals secking employ-

ment or promotions within law firms.

3a

The ASSOCIATION OF BLACK WOMEN LAW-

YERS OF NEW JERSEY (ABWL) was organized in

September, 1975 by a group of Black women lawyers,

law school graduates and law school students determined

to establish a meaningful vehicle of communication and

Support among minority women in law. The goal was to

devise a means of encouraging more minority women to

enter the legal field and to enhance the quality of legal

services rendered to the minority community throughout

the State of New Jersey.

To this end, the Association has been involved in ac-

tion directed toward preserving law school policies which

encourage and aid minority admissions into the legal pro-

fession. The Association also encourages and endorses

employment practices offering equal access to the legal

arena and supports the provision of legal services to the

unrepresented and underrepresented.

ABWL seeks to accomplish many purposes, including:

providing a forum for discussion and dissemination of

legal information on matters of interest to Black and

minority attorneys in the legal profession: fostering better

communication, cooperation and understanding with the

legal profession; assisting charitable and educational pur-

Suits beneficial to the legal community and the community

at large; encouraging members to participate in commun-

ity service organizations; and providing members with

information and counseling concerning career opportuni-

ties in the legal profession. Currently there are over 100

ABWL members.

ABWL is interested in Ezold v. Wolf, Block. Schorr

and Solis-Cohen because the Association believes that the

outcome of this case will have a significant and real im-

pact on career options for our members. Furthermore.

the Association realizes that concerted action on the part

of organizations such as ours is needed to orchestrate

meaningful changes in the legal profession throughout

this nation.

4a

CALIFORNIA WOMEN LAWYERS (CWL) is one

of the largest women’s bar associations in the nation,

representing the interests of over 30,000 women lawyers.

CWL’s mission is to promote the advancement of women

and the achievement of gender parity. To that end, CWL

has authored sexual harassment policy guidelines for the

workplace which have been endorsed by numerous law

firms and bar associations throughout California.

The CALIFORNIA WOMEN’S LAW CENTER was

established in 1989 as the first Law Center in Southern

California solely devoted to addressing the civil rights of

women and girls. The Law Center has identified the fol-

lowing priorities for its work: Sex Discrimination in Em-

ployment, Education and Health, Reproductive Freedom,

Child Care, Family Law and Domestic Violence.

Sex discrimination against women in the workplace is

a common occurrence which hinders the full career devel-

opment and advancement of women. The Law Center is

deeply concerned about the “glass ceiling” effect on

women working in professional settings. The outcome of

this case will have important repercussions for the women

and girls of California and is thus clearly within the pri-

ority concerns of the Law Center. The California

Women’s Law Center, therefore, has a significant inter-

est in Ms. Ezold’s petition as well as extensive back-

ground and expertise in the issues presented to this Court.

The CENTER FOR ECONOMIC OPTIONS is a non-

profit, community-based organization that is committed

to improving the economic position and quality of life of

West Virginia women. We work with women in transi-

tion with a special commitment to low-income and minor-

ity women. Our work is accomplished through direct

service action, education, and advocacy for social and

economic justice.

We are pleased to serve as amicus in this important

litigation. As an organization that addresses a variety of

employment-related issues for women, including sexual

Sa

discrimination, sexual harassment and pay equity, we be-

lieve that the decision below in this case will establish

a dangerous precedent for the enforcement of Title VII

in the context of professional employment.

The CENTER FOR WOMEN POLICY STUDIES

(CWPS) is a nonprofit feminist organization founded in

1972 dedicated to research and advocacy to further wom-

en’s rights. One of the Center’s priorities is the achieve-

ment of equity in the workplace and the elimination of

the “glass ceiling” for women. To that end, CWPS sup-

ports a broad and effective interpretation of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

The COALITION OF LABOR UNION WOMEN

(CLUW) is an organization of union women and men,

working within the framework of the labor movement to

attain its four major goals: organizing the unorganized,

pursuing affirmative action in the workplace, encouraging

greater participation of women in their unions. and work-

ing for greater involvement of women in legislative and

political action activities.

CLUW, founded in March 1974, implements its pro-

grams through more than sixty-four chapters located

across the country. CLUW acts as an advocacy organ-

ization for the more than 7.5 million union women in the

country.

Over its twenty-year history, CLUW has acquired a

record and reputation for fighting to improve the status

of women and to eliminate the barriers that impede wom-

en’s progress. Eliminating the “glass ceiling” wherever

it exists is one of CLUW’s major priorities.

The COLORADO WOMEN’S BAR ASSOCIATION

(CWBA) is a nonprofit organization with approximately

750 members. Membership is open to attorneys and non-

attorneys, regardless of sex, race, religion, national origin

or sexual orientation. The CWBA was formed to pro-

mote the highest standards of the legal profession, to ad-

vance justice, to promote, advance and protect the in-

6a

terests and welfare of women, and to pursue these goals

through appropriate legal, social and political action.

The primary interest of amicus CWBA is the impact

the decision below will have on the ability of women to

demonstrate bias in professional employment decisions.

The EMPLOYMENT LAW CENTER (ELC), A

PROJECT OF THE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, is a private, nonprofit, public interest law

firm that represents workers in cases involving employ-

ment discrimination and issues affecting workplace rights

The ELC specializes in, among other areas, sex discrim

ination.

The ELC represented Lillian Garland in California

Federal Savines & Loan v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272 (1987),

which upheld Cal. Gov't Code § 12945(b)(2), a state

law which provides up to four months of pregnancy dis-

ability leave and a right to return to the same or similar

job.

The ELC also represented Queen Foster in Johnson

Controls, Inc. v. Fair Employment & Housing Commi:

sion, 267 Cal. Rptr. 158 (1990), where the Court of

Appeals ruled that the employer’s gender-based exclusion-

ary “fetal protection” policy violated the Fair Employ-

ment and Housing Act. The ELC also appeared as

amicus curiae in the United States Supreme Court in

International Union, UAW v. Johnson Controls, 111 S. Ct.

1196 (1991), in which the Court held that the employ-

er’s “fetal protection” policy constituted sex discrimina-

tion prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964.

The ELC has participated as amicus curiae in many

sex discrimination cases before the United States Supreme

Court, including Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 USS.

228 (1989) and Wyeant v. Jackson Board of Fducation

476 U.S. 267 (1986).

EQUAL RIGHTS ADVOCATES, INC. (ERA) is a

San Francisco-based public interest legal and educational

Ta

corporation dedicated to working through the legal sys-

tem to secure equality for women. ERA has a long his

tory of interest, activism, and advocacy in all areas of the

law which affect equality between the sexes. ERA has

been particularly concerned with gender equality in the

work force because economic independence is funda

mental to women’s ability to gain equality in other con

texts. If the dream of equality is ever to be realized.

elimination of gender-based double standards, which re

quire women to be better qualified than men in order to

be promoted, is essential.

The FEDERALLY EMPLOYED WOMEN LEGA

AND EDUCATION FUND (FEW-LEF) is a nonprofit

organization, incorporated in 1977 under the laws of the

District of Columbia. It was established to undertake

legal, educational and research activities in order to elim-

inate unlawful discrimination in the federal government

on the basis of race, sex, age, religion, national origin,

handicap, and lawful political affiliation. The Board of

Directors consists of EEO officials, federal employees,

plaintiffs in EEO suits, attorneys who represent EEO

plaintiffs and others interested in these issues.

We know, often from firsthand experience, how difficult

it is to prevail in these cases at the district court level.

To allow a defendant what is in effect a new trial at the

appellate level is disastrous for plaintiffs. It encourages

lengthy. expensive appeals which defendants are better

able to outlast than plaintiffs.

Like Nancy Ezold, many women in the federal service

are subjected to different, more difficult criteria for

success than are their male counterparts. These federal

women, many of whom we have taught about their richts

or supplied with counsel, will be affected by the outcome

of this case.

The FEDERATION OF ORGANIZATIONS FOR

PROFESSIONAL WOMEN (FOPW) is a federation of

thirty professional women’s organizations, including the

8a

Association for Women in Science, the Association for

Women in Education, the American Psychiatric Associa-

tion, the Association for Women Veterinarians, the Asso-

ciation of Women Geoscientists, and the American LiI-

brary Association's Committee on the Status of Women

in Librarianships. FOPW was founded in 1972 to work

together to study the issues that impact the careers of

professional women, to educate professional women on

those issues and to provide mutual support. FOPW |

particularly interested in gender discrimination and sex

ual harassment issues, because we have found that aside

from severe illness, the experience of discrimination o1

harassment has the single most devastating effect on a

professional woman’s career. Inequity in the workplace

that is based on gender should not be tolerated in an

open, democratic society. Equal contribution must be

equally rewarded.

Founded in 1987, the FEMINIST MAJORITY

FOUNDATION is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit national or-

ganization with offices in Arlington, Virginia and Los

Angeles, California. The Feminist Majority Foundation

seeks to empower women through research, education,

and action. As a part of its Empowering Women report

series, the Feminist Majority Foundation is currently

completing a report on Empowering Women in Law. The

Foundation is committed to shattering all obstacles to

women’s advancement in the legal profession, and, accord-

ingly, supports the case made by Nancy O’Mara Ezold.

The FLORIDA ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN

LAWYERS (FAWL) is a large, voluntary statewide as-

sociation of attorneys of both genders involved in all

areas of the law. Its purposes include improvement of

the administration of justice and the promotion of

women’s legal rights, qand the elimination of abuses that

diminish the integrity ‘of the individual as well as the

family.

FAWL is vitally interested in this case, not only be-

cause of the impact that it has on women lawyers, who

9a

comprise the majority of FAWL’s members, but also be-

Cause of its negative impact on the law of employment

discrimination. We believe that the law established by

the decision of the court of appeals would present an

insurmountable obstacle to many valid cases of employ-

ment discrimination.

FAWL and its chapters have been involved as amici

curiae in cases in the Florida appellate courts and Su-

preme Court, as well as the federal courts. These cases

have involved issues as varied as family violence, child

abuse, the right to choice in personal and family matters,

sexual harassment, discrimination in jury selection, and

fairness in the administration of justice.

The GEORGIA ASSOCIATION FOR WOMEN

LAWYERS is a nonprofit association which promotes

the welfare and interest of women lawyers, and informs

and educates lawyers in Georgia on matters pertaining to

the professional interest and status of women lawyers.

The Association has served Georgia since 1928 and in-

cludes among its members over 600 lawyers in all areas

of practice. The Association also works Closely with

other organizations which promote the interests of women

professionals.

The Georgia Association for Women Lawyers is keenly

interested in the development of the law applied in sex

discrimination cases which invoke the application of sub-

jective standards and which involve claims for admission

to professional partnerships. The ability of women to

progress in professional firms unimpeded by impermissi-

ble discrimination is of utmost concern to our members.

The development of the legal standards which will be

applied to identify subtle, but invidious, discrimination

which serves as a “glass ceiling” to prevent women from

developing their full potential in the workplace is vital

and merits the Court’s attention.

The HISPANIC NATIONAL BAR ASSOCIATION

(HNBA) is an incorporated, nonprofit, national associa-

10a

tion of Hispanic attorneys, judges, law professors, and

law students. The HNBA has been the principal force

behind the increased representation of Hispanics in all

sectors of the legal profession and has served as the legal

voice of Hispanics for over twenty years.

Founded in California in 1972 as La Raza National

Lawyers Association, membership was initially drawn

from the westexn and southwestern parts of the country.

In 1980 its name was changed to the Hispanic National

Bar Association to reflect the increasingly broad-based

national membership.

The HNBA’s primary foci are legal education (through

the Council on Legal Education Opportunity), judicial

selection, and civil rights issues. Equal employment op-

portunity for all without regard to race, color, ethnicity,

national origin, gender, religion, disability, age and sex-

ual orientation is central to our mission to advance the

cause of justice in the United States.

The HISPANIC WOMEN’S COUNCIL is a 501(c)

(3) nonprofit organization that was founded in 1973.

The Hispanic Women’s Council is dedicated to improving

the status of Hispanic women through education, career

and leadership development activities. The Council's

four major areas of program activities are educational

opportunity, leadership and career development, youth

outreach, and communication and advocacy.

The JAPANESE AMERICAN CITIZENS LEAGUE

(JACL) is the largest Asian American civil and human

rights organization in the United States. Established as a

nonprofit organization in 1929, JACL has participated,

either as a party or as amicus curiae, in various legal

actions which have challenged racial discrimination

against Asian Americans. One of JACL’s primary mis-

sions 1s to secure equal opportunity for Asian Americans

and to fight discrimination in all forms.

The MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND (MALDEF) is a_na-

lla

tional civil rights organization founded in 1967 and

headquartered in Los Angeles. Its principal objective is

to secure and to protect, through litigation and educa-

tion, the civil rights of Latinos living in the United

States. Much of MALDEF’s advocacy is directed at elim-

inating the barriers to equal employment opportunity for

Latinos, particularly in upper-level employment from

which Latinos usually are altogether excluded.

The NATIONAL ASIAN PACIFIC AMERICAN

BAR ASSOCIATION (NAPABA) is a nationwide, non-

profit, nonpartisan organization of Asian Pacific Ameri-

can attorneys, judges and law students. Founded in 1989,

NAPABA has over 3000 members and is dedicated to

serving the needs of Asian Pacific American attorneys

and their communities. Among its primary missions are

the elimination of employment discrimination and the

advancement of Asian Pacific American attorneys in the

legal profession.

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR FEMALE

EXECUTIVES (NAFE), headquartered in New York

City, is a twenty-year-old professional organization that

has a current United States membership of 247,000

women in professional, managerial, and entreprencurial

employment. It is the largest and the fastest-growing

business women’s organization in the country; its mem-

bers are concentrated in the southeast, midwest, south-

west, and upper central states, and represent a broad

racial and ethnic cross section of women between the

ages of twenty-five and fifty-five. NAFE was founded

for the purpose of helping women to achieve financial

independence and career success. It has recently become

involved as an advocate in issues relating to the “glass

ceiling,” sexual harassment, health equity, and domestic

violence. Responding to the business and financial needs

of its members and its 600 regional networks, NAFE

provides venture capital investment in women-owned busi-

nesses, Career materials, seminars and conferences, job

hotlines, and numerous other financial services for its

members.

12a

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR GIRLS AND

WOMEN IN SPORT (NAGWS) was founded in 1899

and is one of six associations which form the American

Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and

Dance (AAHPERD) headquartered in Reston, Virginia.

At the present time there are approximately 7500 mem-

bers of NAGWS who are primarily physical education

teachers and or coaches of girls’ and women’s athletic

teams.

The mission of NAGWS is to ensure gender equity for

girls and women in sport. In order to accomplish this

mission, the membership has directed the organization’s

advocacy efforts to ensure the implementation of Title IX

in the schools and colleges and to increase the number of

women in leadership roles and coaching positions.

NAGWS supports the efforts of Nancy Ezold because,

like lawyers, coaches are often evaluated according to

subjective standards that mask gender bias. Even though

the won-lost record provides an objective measure of

coaching performance, many coaches have been fired

even when their records were successful because of the

subjective aspects of their evaluations. NAGWS believes

that all working women must have the protection for

_ which Ms. Ezold is fighting.

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK

WOMEN ATTORNEYS (NABWA) was established to

improve the administration of justice by, among other

things, increasing opportunities for participation of black

and other women at all levels of society. NABWA be-

lieves it is essential that the legal system ensure that

black and other women be given the opportunity to enjoy

a working environment free from sex discrimination.

NABWA has a strong interest in cases such as this one

which seek to ensure that women working in professional

settings will not be subject to the “glass ceiling.”

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NEGRO BUSI-

NESS AND PROFESSIONAL WOMEN’S CLUBS, INC.

OO

iia

13a

(NANBPWC, Inc.) was founded in the spring of 1935.

The founders were owners, managers, college graduates,

and other professionally licensed women who had man-

aged to realize some measure of personal success at a

time when there was no national “movement” to improve

the lot of black Americans; when there was no “black

capitalism” program nor any black studies curricula.

Still, they were ready to lead.

NANBPWC, Inc. members include thousands of busy,

working women in 300 clubs in the United States and

Bermuda. We recognize the importance of sharing ac-

complishments with others and working together—to im-

prove the quality of life in our communities: to create

an atmosphere in which black women are able to bring

about meaningful changes in our public and_ private

lives: to offer positive models to the young women in our

communities; to share our skills and knowledge with

others: to explore alternate ways for women to meet the

multiple challenges of today’s world.

On the local level NANBPWC’s 300 clubs identify

and act upon the special needs of their communities.

Workshops, programs and activities address a wide range

of concerns, including: employment and economic devel-

opment: divorce and child custody; housing; sex and race

discrimination; community service; local, state, and na-

tional politics; and child care initiatives including foster

care programs,

On the national level, NANBPWC, Inc. enjoys observer

Status at the United Nations, provides a link with other

national and international groups, co-sponsors technical

assistance for government agencies, and facilitates the

awarding of scholarships and financial assistance to col-

lege-bound students.

Founded in 1899, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF WOMEN LAWYERS® (NAWL*) is a voluntary

national membership organization of the legal profession,

having official representation in various organizations,

l4a

commissions and governmental agencies, both national

and international. It is comprised of approximately 1100

individual members and ten women’s bar association af-

fillate members, encompassing 10,000 additional mem-

bers. Its individual members, from each state and the

District of Columbia, include prosecutors, public de-

fenders, private attorneys, trial and appellate judges

from the state and federal courts, legislators, law profes-

sors and law students. Although the members of

NAWL* hold a broad spectrum of personal views, they

share a common concern that the law be administered

justly, fairly and predictably. As an organization made

up primarily of women it has and continues to be a sup-

porter of women’s rights in all facets of society. As an

organization of legal professionals it upholds the integrity

of the justice system. NAWL"™ advocates the elimination

of all forms of discrimination, particularly discrimination

against women and minorities.

The NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF WOMEN’S

BAR ASSOCIATIONS (NCWBA) is a national non-

profit professional organization of state, regional, and

local women’s bar associations in forty-seven states and

the District of Columbia. Its goals are to promote the

advancement of women in the profession of law, to en-

hance the professional lives of women lawyers, and to

advance issues of interest to women and the profession.

NCWBA is an affiliate of the American Bar Association

(ABA), and works closely with the ABA’s Commission

on the Status of Women in the Profession to further these

goals.

The NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEWISH WOMEN,

INC. (NCJW) is a volunteer organization, inspired by

Jewish values, that works through a program of research,

education, advocacy and community service to improve

the quality of life for women, children and families and

strives to ensure individual rights and freedoms for all.

Founded in 1893, the National Council of Jewish

Women has 100,000 members in over 500 communities

15a

around the country. The National Council of Jewish

Women believes that individual liberties and rights guar-

anteed by the Constitution are keystones of a free and

pluralistic society and must be protected. Based on

NCJW’s National Resolutions stating our belief that

equality of rights shall not be denied or abridged on the

basis of gender, we join this brief.

The NATIONAL COUNCIL OF NEGRO WOMEN,

INC. (NCNW), established in 1935, is a voluntary non-

profit membership organization committed to the ad-

vancement of educational, social, and economic oppor-

tunities for African American women. Through our

thirty-three National African American Women’s affili-

ate organizations, and 250 community based sections in

forty-two states, NCNW has an outreach to four million

women.

As African American women, issues of employment

discrimination based on race and/or gender are of utmost

critical concern. Federal anti-discrimination laws must be

applied to professional employment decisions. Without

this assurance, the discriminatory “glass ceiling” will con-

tinue to deny our society the talents of qualified women

and minority professionals.

The NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FOR WOMEN

(NOW) is the nation’s largest feminist organization, with

over 250,000 members and more than 650 chapters in all

fifty states and the District of Columbia devoted to the

advancement of women’s rights. Since its inception, NOW

has supported and worked toward full employment op-

portunities for women as well as protection from job

discrimination and sexual harassment.

The NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER

(NWLC) is a nonprofit legal advocacy organization dedi-

cated to the advancement and protection of women’s

rights and the corresponding elimination of sex discrim-

ination from all facets of American life. Since 1972,

NWLC has worked to secure equal opportunity in the

16a

workplace through the full enforcement of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and other

civil rights statutes, and through the implementation of

effective remedies for long-standing discrimination

against women and minorities.

The NEW JERSEY WOMEN LAWYERS ASSOCIA-

TION (NJWLA) is a nonprofit bar association whose

purpose is to identify issues of concern to women attor-

neys, and to study and advise the public and its member-

ship on issues affecting the legal status of women. Em-

ployment discrimination against women attorneys is of

central interest to the membershiv of the NJWLA. The

NJWLA therefore joins in the brief of amici curiae in

support of Nancy O’Mara Ezold.

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW WOMEN is a stu-

dent organization that was founded in the 1970’s by

women, for women law students. It has matured into a

sroup open to all students that creates and sponsors

projects providing support for women and education for

the law school community.

Some of the activities sponsored by Law Women in-

clude: a Public Record that reports in the student news-

paper student impressions of the law school atmosphere

for women, a Film and Discussion series, student-faculty

receptions, a mentoring program, a speakers series, and

various fundraising and social events. In addition, Law

Women is an umbrella organization for several other

groups such as: the Women in Prison Project, the Repro-

ductive Freedom Project, the Coalition Against Sexual

Violence, and the Women in Work Conference.

As law students committed to equality for women in

the workplace, we support Ms. Ezold in her action

against Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen.

The NORTHWEST WOMEN’S LAW CENTER is a

private nonprofit organization in Seattle, Washington, that

works to advance the legal rights of women through liti-

gation, education, legislative advocacy, and providing in-

17a

formation and referrals to women with legal problems.

One of the Law Center’s priority issues is the elimination

of sex discrimination in employment. The Law Center

has participated in numerous cases involving sex discrim-

ination in employment before the federal circuit courts

and the United States Supreme Court including Price

Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) and

Hishon v. King and Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 ( 1984).

The NOW LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATION

FUND (NOW LDEF) was founded in 1970 by the lead-

ers of the National Organization for Women as a non-

profit civil rights organization to perform a broad range

of legal and educational services nationally in support of

women’s efforts to eliminate sex-based discrimination and

secure equal rights. A major goal of the NOW LDEF is

the elimination of barriers that deny women economic

opportunities. In furtherance of that goal, NOW LDEF

has participated in numerous cases to secure full enforce-

ment of laws prohibiting employment discrimination. in-

cluding Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228

(1989).

The PENNSYLVANIA NATIONAL ORGANIZA-

TION FOR WOMEN (PENNSYLVANIA NOW) is a

membership group whose organizational purpose is to

“bring women into full participation in the mainstream of

American society.” Nationally, NOW is the largest

women’s rights organization in the country. It is the lead-

ing advocate of women’s equality in all areas of life. One

of NOW’s top priorities is the elimination of gender-based

discrimination in employment. Pennsylvania NOW is par-

ticularly committed to the eradication of gender-based

discrimination of women employed in Pennsylvania.

The SAN FRANCISCO WOMEN LAWYERS’ AL-

LIANCE is a progressive, activist bar organization of

over 400 lawyers founded in 1983 to provide a vehicle

through which lawyers can address women’s issues and en-

hance the position of women in our society. One of the

issues of specific concern to the Alliance is the elimina-

18a

tion of gender discrimination in employment, particularly

in the legal profession.

The SOCIETY OF AMERICAN LAW TEACHERS

(SALT), founded in April 1974, is the only national

membership organization of law teachers in the United

States. It includes approximately 700 law professors

across the country who are concerned about the social

responsibility of the legal profession. Its interests include

law reform, legal education, and the supply and quality

of legal representation. As a general matter, SALT takes

public positions on issues involving equality, diversity, or

academic freedom. It has taken public positions in a

number of ways, including co-sponsoring events, submit-

ting or joining amicus curiae briefs, writing letters, and

making formal statements in support of judicial nomi-

nations.

WOMEN EMPLOYED is a national organization of

working women, based in Chicago, with a membership of

2000. Since 1973, the organization has assisted thousands

of working women with problems of sex discrimination.

Women Employed works to empower women to improve

their economic status and to remove barriers to economic

equity through advocacy, direct service and _ public

education.

The WOMEN LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF MICH-

IGAN, with over 1000 members, including judges, attor-

neys, men and women, is an organization dedicated to the

advancement of women in the practice of law. The or-

ganization is interested in this matter as it involves the

treatment of women in the profession and, specifically,

discrimination against women in the profession.

The WOMEN’S ALLIANCE FOR JOB EQUITY

(WAJE) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improv-

ing the economic and working conditions of women in the

Delaware Valley. As part of our Support and Advocacy

for Women with Job Problems program, WAJE counsels

women who are experiencing unlawful employment prac-

tices, including sex discrimination.

19a

The decision below is a significant step backward for

women who face employment discrimination. It is im-

perative that Nancy Ezold and the many other women in

the work force who are forced to endure gender-based dis-

crimination have an effective remedy under Title VII.

Thus, WAJE is pleased to join as amicus in support of

Ms. Ezold.

The WOMEN’S BAR ASSOCIATION OF MASSA-

CHUSETTS was founded to promote and enhance the in-

terests of women in the legal community, and all women,

by encouraging professional interaction, education, and

exchange of ideas among its members and between its

members and other individuals, groups and organizations.

The Women’s Bar Association is an advocate for the

rights of women. Because the decision below will, if per-

mitted to stand, have important policy and social ramifica-

tions, the Women’s Bar Association joins this brief.

The WOMEN’S BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE

STATE OF NEW YORK (WBASNY) is an organization

of over 3000 attorneys comprising fifteen chapters through-

out the State of New York concerned with issues that im-

pact women both in the practice of law and in the law

itself. Founded in 1980, its stated purposes include the

following: to cooperate with, aid and support organiza-

tions and causes which advance the status and progress

of women in society, to facilitate the administration of

justice, and to cultivate the science of jurisprudence.

The WOMEN’S LAW CAUCUS OF RUTGERS UNI-

VERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW IN CAMDEN, NEW

JERSEY is a student-run organization which supports the

ideals of equality and dignity for women and recognizes

the additional challenges women of all ages face because

of their gender in the law school and the legal profession.

Our organization has a special and local interest in the

Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen case and

proudly joins Ms. Ezold in seeking the elimination of

gender barriers to professional advancement.

20a

The WOMEN’S LAW CAUCUS OF TEMPLE UNI-

VERSITY was established to promote and further the

struggle for equal rights for women; to challenge and

abolish sexist behavior and attitudes within the School of

Law; and to work to eradicate sexism as it is expressed

in the law.

The Women’s Law Caucus has a strong interest in the

outcome of Ezold v. Wolf. Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen.

Nancy Ezold’s case will establish an important precedent

for the implementation of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964. Her quest for equal treatment in the work-

place will also contribute to the professional climate our

members will encounter as we enter into the legal field.

We are therefore pleased to join with women’s organiza-

tions throughout the country as amicus in support of

Nancy Ezold’s struggle against the discriminatory prac-

tices of her former employer.

The WOMEN’S LAW CAUCUS OF WIDENER

UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW is a student-run or-

ganization whose purpose is to educate the law school

community about women’s issues and to promote equal

opportunity for female law students. Because virtually all

of our members will practice law after graduation and be

dependent on subjective performance evaluations, the out-

come of this case is of utmost concern to our organiza-

tion. The Women’s Law Caucus of Widener University

is thus proud to join as amicus in support of the case

made by Nancy O’Mara Ezold.

The WOMEN’S LAW CENTER is an advocacy or-

ganization whose membership consists of attorneys and

judges in the State of Maryland. In existence since

1971, the goal of the Women’s Law Center is to promote

the legal rights of women through litigation, legislation

and education. The Women’s Law Center has an interest

in the elimination of all forms of discrimination, and has

been particularly involved with cases of sex discrimination

in employment. The Women’s Law Center believes the

issues involved in Ezold v. Wolf, Block, Schorr and

2la

Solis-Cohen affect the rights of many women employed

today.

Since 1971, the WOMEN’S LEGAL DEFENSE FUND

(WLDF) has been a leading force in the drive to achieve

equality for women throughout the United States. We

advocate for strong laws, regulations, and policies to

guarantee that women’s participation in the labor force.

and in society as a whole, is free of sex discrimination.

In working toward the goal of economic justice for all

women, WLDF is committed to ensuring that women are

not prevented from advancing to positions of higher re-

sponsibility and pay.

YALE LAW SCHOOL WOMEN represents the in-

terests of women who attend Yale Law School. The

Organization advocates women’s rights generally, and

works toward equal opportunity for female law students

at Yale and to increase the number of female faculty at

Yale Law School. Nearly all of the organization’s mem-

bers will practice law after graduation. Many will prac-

tice at law firms, and all will be employed as professionals

whose success will depend in part on subjective evalua-

tions of their work. Yale Law School Women joins this

amicus brief to oppose sex discrimination in employment

and particularly to support the applicability of Title VII

to professional, subjective employment decisions.

9TOS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WORKING

WOMEN, is a membership organization that is changing

the image and working conditions of women. 9to5 is

dedicated to empowering office workers to upgrade their

pay, benefits, job opportunities, and respect on the job.

9toS advocates for the rights of working women.